 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Of over 50 commentaries and letters to the editor on AC Transit and the Van Hool buses that I have assembled, only 2 had good words for them, one written by AC Transit PR man, Jaimie Levin, and the other by Board Member Christian Peeples.I’ve done some editing so the following is about half of them. Even then, probably more than you want to read.
(This commentary and AC Transit’s March 8, 2005 response to it made me sit up and write my April 12, 2005 commentary.)
Published Friday, February 18, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
Comment
New AC Transit Buses Are a Safety Hazard
By Dorothy Bryant
I can't suffer in silence anymore! I know there are worse problems in this world, the stupid war, tsunami disaster, starvation, AIDS, etc. etc., but right now I MUST say something about the stupid, even dangerous new buses AC Transit has unleashed on our streets.
First of all, I am an urban walker, a native San Franciscan, transplant to Berkeley. I can't imagine living any place where I'd have to step into a car every time I leave my house. I own a car but never use it within San Francisco or Berkeley during the day if I can avoid it. (We chose our house to be near a BART station for trips to San Francisco.) When I walk far enough in Berkeley to get very, very tired, I hop on a bus to come home. Since I've just turned 75, that weariness attacks me sooner.
The first time I saw one of these new abominations lurching and rocking its way toward me, I thought "new driver?" but no, the thing just does that. Something odd about the springs. I stepped on, looking forward to swinging round easily and sinking into one of the front seats reserved for old and disabled. But, no! Those seats were a step up, like a Greyhound bus! Seeing the little "reserved for disabled and elderly" sign by them was like a bad joke, since getting up and down from those seats is a true hazard for anyone with mobility problems. Furthermore, the aisle was narrow, seats were few, hand-hole poles VERY few, none overhead, and with inconveniently placed buttons to signal that you want to get off (no wires along the windows to pull on).
Since then, each time I get onto one of these buses, hoist myself up, or stumble down the aisle to one of few seats at floor level (where you can't see out the windows!) I watch as a person my age or older struggles to get in and up to a seat, then down from a seat and out again. I watch young mothers with a couple of active pre-school kids trying to pay the fare, hold onto the kids, hoist them up into a seat before they fall a second time!
I ask myself, with so many mothers with young children and so many old and infirm people using AC transit, poor people who can't even own a car, what genius made the decision to choose this design? Or is this a fleet of buses rejected by every other country in the world? Or someone took a bribe, or jumped at a bargain the manufacturer wanted to unload? It seems too late to protest --they're everywhere -- but I am outraged anew every time I get on one of these awful things. And all I need to do is mention them to get a similar reaction from other people who use them. Of course, many will refuse to do so, if they can afford to drive. And isn't that just what Berkeley was trying to avoid? -- more cars driving and parking on our streets?
Berkeley author Dorothy Bryant is a frequent contributor to the Daily Planet.
* * * * *
Letters to the Editor
Published Tuesday, March 8, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
NEW BUSES ARE POPULAR
Editors, Daily Planet:
Dorothy Bryant’s recent op-ed piece was highly critical of AC Transit’s fleet of Van Hool buses, but the facts present a very different picture. The truth is that the vast majority of AC Transit’s passengers really prefer these buses.
AC Transit staff devoted considerable time and resources in designing a bus with passenger-oriented features that are actually based on market research and consumer preferences. These vehicles, with their low-floor entry, have been used throughout the world for many years. They are now an industry standard in Europe and Asia, where millions of daily riders in cities like Paris, Zurich, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, and Tokyo, to name a few, strongly prefer this style bus to the old high-floor buses that require people to lumber up and down three high steps to get on and off.
The Van Hool bus actually achieved worldwide recognition in 2003 and 2004, as the best designed and engineered transit bus in Europe, beating out some of the biggest bus manufacturers in the world, including Mercedes Benz, Volvo, Neoplan of Germany, and DAF/Berkhof of the Netherlands. More than 15 journalists, who regularly cover the transit market in Europe, judged the highly competitive competition.
AC Transit surveyed nearly 500 passengers when our prototype Van Hools arrived more than two years ago, and the average quality rating among those surveyed was 4.2 out of a maximum of 5. Equally significant, since we launched regular service with our Van Hool fleet in 2003, AC Transit’s overall ridership has climbed 7 percent. In particular, our San Pablo Rapid (Line 72R), which features Van Hools exclusively, has experienced a 66 percent growth in ridership.
To be sure, some people don’t like our new buses. It’s impossible to please everyone, but the majority of our customers really do appreciate the new design and its many passenger-friendly conveniences, like low-floors, wide doors, electric door openers, big windows, rear windows, great views, bright destination signs, easy access for people in wheelchairs, third-door exits, and a wide-open area in the center of the coach to better accommodate extra passenger loads.
Jaimie Levin
AC Transit director of marketing and communications
* * * * *
Letters to the Editor
Published Friday, March 11, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
AC TRANSIT BUSES
Editors, Daily Planet:
AC Transit’s Jaimie Levin (Letters, Daily Planet, March 8-10) correctly pointed out what I failed to mention—the one, single advantage of the new Van Hool buses: The passenger enters almost on curb level, instead of climbing up the two steps of the older buses. However, she neglected to add that, while the passenger climbs up those entry steps in the older bus, the bus is standing still.
The new buses are MOVING while the passenger climbs up a steep step into a seat, climbs down from the seat, searches for a button to signal departure, searches for something to hang onto while getting to the exit, then searches there for the button that works the electric door opener.
Dorothy Bryant
* * * * *
COMMENTARY
Published Friday, April 12, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
AC Transit’s Van Hools Hated by Riders, Drivers
By Joyce Roy
Jaimie Levin’s letter praising the Van Hool buses (DAILY PLANET, March 8-10) shows how totally out of touch AC Transit is with its riders. When these buses were first introduced, riders’ complaints were so loud and clear, that one could assume they would not continue to order them. But no, they plugged their ears and didn’t even listen to their own Riders Advisory Committee (RAC) which gave the buses their thumbs down. The board then eliminated the RAC to avoid listening to riders’ pesky demands. And soon Van Hools will be invading all the bus lines—AC Transit plans to replace ALL their buses with them.
I am a very active senior and do not own a car so I am a frequent rider and I can tell you the overwhelming majority of riders and operators hate them. I hear seniors, in particular, saying, “We pray for an old bus.” They are better because once you get up a couple of steps (and the bus is not going to start moving as you are getting up the steps) you are home free. You can sit down quickly in a nearby seat or any other seat without having to negotiate steps while the bus is moving.
I was on a Van Hool bus with the AC Transit boardmember who has been the chief advocate for these buses, when a passenger with two canes had to get to one of the few no-step seats that are not near the door. It took some time as it was crowded and people had to help him while shouting at the driver to not start moving before he got seated. In talking to the boardmember afterwards, I pointed out this example of how cumbersome they are and he replied, “but you see people do manage.”
Yes, “people do manage” to overcome many obstacles. But why should they have to because of bad design. But since AC Transit primarily has a captive audience, people who have no other choices, they have to keep on riding buses that ignore their comfort and safety.
These buses are built in Belgium, but Belgium is not to be blamed for the interior configuration. That very awkward, cumbersome, if not hazardous, seating arrangement was dreamed up in AC Transit’s ivory tower without any consumer testing.
Here is the Van Hool experience as designed by AC Transit: You enter through a narrow door that cannot accommodate passengers getting on and off simultaneously. Then you encounter a bottleneck that will not accommodate baby carriages or shopping carts. This narrow aisle between seats with a 12” high step is often crowded with people. You look for one of the few seats that will not be too difficult to navigate. If you want to get to seats in the rear, you have to negotiate an area between these seats and the front bottleneck with nothing to hang onto with the bus moving. And if you want to sit looking forward you may be out of luck because almost half of the seats face to the rear. These are very disorienting since, unlike on BART, you have to watch the passing scene to know when to push the stop button, a button that you may not be able to reach easily.
Then there is the rarely used third door. The whole rationale for going to Belgium for these low-floor buses instead of continuing with the two-door low-floor NABI buses assembled in Alabama (the green #72 buses on San Pablo Ave.) is that third door. It was thought to be absolutely necessary to enable people to get off and on Rapid Transit buses quickly without presenting a ticket —a system called proof of payment (POP). It is an honor system backed up by a lot of inspectors randomly checking tickets. It works for some train systems but when an AC Transit staff person was asked if it has worked for buses anyplace in America, he replied, “they tried it in Paris but gave it up because they were losing too much money.” So it is not going to happen anytime soon, certainly not within the lifetime of the buses that have been purchased to implement POP. So the whole rational for them is out the window. But that doesn’t keep AC Transit from continuing to purchase them for every line.
And even the new 30-foot buses with only two doors that have been ordered, will have the same awkward seating.
In fact, there are four ways that Van Hool buses make bus operation less efficient than the low-floor NABI buses:
1) Drivers are not supposed to start moving until everyone is seated and it takes people longer to get seated. 2) People cannot enter at the same time people are exiting from the front door. 3) With wheelchair accessibility in the middle of the bus instead of at the front door it takes time to maneuver the bus to an accessible location. 4) Riders who face backwards are apt to push the stop button for the wrong stop.
If you want to know what I am talking about ride one of the Rapid Transit Van Hool buses on San Pablo then get off and transfer to one of the green buses on the same route. Some low-floor NABIs are on other routes. You can spot them because their windows are low in front of the exit door and higher behind it because the seats are on a higher level.
AC Transit is the nation’s only bus agency with an elected board. Years ago when AC Transit took over from the Key System, it was decided that the board should be elected so it would be more responsive to the needs of riders. Well, it didn’t work. Riders feel they have no say and probably not enough are loud mouths. You would not be able to foist these buses on cities like San Francisco that have a large number of articulate middle and upper class riders.
Seniors were used in ads promoting Measure BB, the parcel tax for AC Transit, before last November’s election. They were shown getting onto a Van Hool bus but their struggle to get into one of the high-step seats reserved for them, once inside, was not shown. The design of these buses belies AC Transit’s concern for the needs of seniors and the mobility impaired.
The Van Hool buses violate the spirit, and perhaps, the letter, of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The seats near doors are supposed to be reserved for seniors and people with disabilities and words to that affect are placed over the front seats with the 12” high steps that make them virtually inaccessible to those with mobility problems. They are only suitable for the young and agile who like a physical challenge or those who have passed Rock Climbing 101.
By the way, I have said practically everything I have said in this letter in person to the Board of AC Transit to no avail.
* * * * *
[As an AC Transit staff member pointed out to me, Peeples mistook “flash pass” for “POP.” “Flash pass” is, say, like a monthly pass that you flash in front of the driver as you enter; 22 bus agencies were using them at the time this was written. None were using POP.]
Letters to the Editor
Published Friday, April 22, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
AC TRANSIT BUSES
Editors, Daily Planet:
I respect Joyce Roy’s right to her observations and opinions (“AC Transit’s Van Hools Hated by Riders, Drivers,” April-14). Unfortunately, once she moved beyond her observations and opinions, virtually every fact in her comment is mistaken.
AC Transit’s Van Hool A330s are “true low floor” buses in that they have a flat floor from the front all the way to the back wall of the bus. In a true low floor design, seats must be on risers in order to accommodate necessary elements such as fuel tanks, batteries and the drive shaft.
Far from being “dreamed up in AC Transit’s ivory tower,” true low floor buses are the norm in Europe, ridden by millions of people every day. Every Van Hool A330 in the world is a true low floor bus with most of their seats on risers. All of the new Mercedes Citaro buses (the most popular bus in the world) are true low floor buses with most of their seats on risers. The same is true for new models from Volvo, Scandia, Fiat, etc., all with their seats on risers. Toyota and Nissan have similar models in Japan.
One of the advantages of a true low floor bus is that it allows for a third door on a standard bus and a fourth door on an articulated bus. That, in turn, allows a proof-of-payment (POP) fare system to work much more efficiently. With a POP system, if a passenger has a proof that she or he has paid (such as a monthly pass, a transfer or some group pass such as the UC Berkeley Class Pass or an Eco Pass) she or he can board through any door. Passengers who need to pay board through the front door and pay as usual and get a receipt. Fare inspectors periodically come through to make sure that everyone has paid.
With POP on the Van Hools, persons with any mobility difficulty would generally board through the wide middle door. For seniors and persons with disabilities that would give them immediate access to all seven ground level seats. For those with strollers, shopping carts, etc., they would have the large flat area in the middle of the bus for their devices.
According to the APTA’s (American Public Transportation Association) 2004 Transit Fare Summary there are 22 agencies in North America that use POP on buses. POP is almost universal on light rail. If you have ridden light rail above ground in San Francisco, you have ridden on a POP system. If you have ridden light rail anywhere in San Jose or Sacramento, you have ridden on a POP system.
In Europe, POP is ubiquitous on both bus and rail systems. Paris, for example, has used POP on buses for 40 years in my personal experience and still uses a form of POP today. (Paris is now experimenting to see if when they introduce a “smart card” (as the Bay Area is doing with TransLink) they can speed up boarding enough so that POP is no longer needed.)
Every POP system deals with the interrelated issues of enforcement costs and fare evasion. There is some literature on those issues and AC Transit is struggling with them at the moment. I hope that we can find some solution and implement POP on an experimental basis soon.
H. E. Christian Peeples
At-Large Director, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
* * * * *
Letters to the Editor
Published Friday, April 29, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
COMEDIAN IN TRANSIT
Editors, Daily Planet:
It warms my heart when an unemployed or retired comedian finds something to keep him busy, which is obviously the good luck of H. E. Christian Peeples, at-large director of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District. When I read his defense of the Van Hool buses—a tour of European proof-of-payment (POP, isn’t that cute?) fare systems and bus manufacturers—I recognized the style immediately. Peeples must have been a writer for Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and is obviously the author of the “Dead Parrot” skit, in which the customer keeps waving a bird corpse in the face of the pet store owner, who keeps saying, in many different ways, that the parrot looks fine to him. Hilarious.
I look forward to Peeples riding these buses to pick up new material, maybe another skit for the “Department of Funny Walks,” as he watches people, old and young, lurching toward and away from seats, climbing up and down, while clutching for non-existent hand-holds. This fun will never end, even if the POP system is ever instigated, because riders who don’t have “a monthly pass, a transfer or some group pass,” (meaning most of the older riders) will still begin at the fare box and stagger on from there. There are no limits here—how about a “Department of Funny Falls and Crawls” joke. I can’t wait.
Dorothy Bryant
SEE FOR YOURSELF
Editors, Daily Planet:
Chris Peeples is the board member I alluded to in my April 14 commentary (“AC Transit’s Van Hools Hated by Riders, Drivers”) so it is appropriate that he respond with a letter (April 22) on the Van Hool, otherwise known as “the Bus from Hell.”
I would simply say the proof is in the pudding. Don’t take either my word or Chris’s for it. Check it out yourself. To quote myself, “ride one of the Rapid Transit Van Hool buses on San Pablo then get off and transfer to one of the green buses on the same route.” Which one would you rather ride, particularly, if you had mobility problems? There is no value to having a narrow low-floor aisle all the way to the unnecessary third door unless one is on a walk-thru. Even if AC Transit goes to proof-of-payment, two doors are plenty. In fact, it would work better with the NABI (green buses) because both of their doors are quite wide.
So, take a field trip and check them out. And you can let AC Transit know what you think by speaking up at their public meeting at 3 and 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 18 at the Scottish Rite Center located at 1547 Lakeside Dr., near 17th Street in Oakland.
Joyce Roy
Oakland
EARTH TO PEEPLES
Editors, Daily Planet:
How blessed we are to be informed by the Almighty H.E. Christian Peeples that the Van Hool buses are, in fact, wonderful buses. As one of the directors of AC Transit, he has been on a one-man crusade to force these buses on the riders. Despite an avalanche of complaints, and almost near-universal loathing by the people who actually have to endure these buses, Peeples has done nothing for the last two years except to contradict what his own constituency says, and to dictate to us that the buses are good and we are just too ignorant to realize this obvious fact. Peeples even used this issue as his single campaign platform in 2004, promising to “better inform the ridership” of the quality of Van Hool buses, in the face of overwhelming hatred of them. (Being an incumbent, running essentially unopposed, he coasted to victory in any event.)
To rebut just a few of the many distortions, absurdities and irrelevancies in his letter in the April 22 issue of the Daily Planet:
It doesn’t matter why the seats are inaccessible; it doesn’t matter how common this ill-conceived design is in other transit districts, and it doesn’t matter whether other bus designs are equally bad; all that matters is that AC Transit’s ridership hates these buses. Period. All his rationalizations are without purpose.
Peeples then goes on to say that “one of the advantages” of the new buses is that is has a third door, without ever listing any other supposed advantages. In fact, this is the only “advantage” he can point to. And what is the point of having a third door, according to Peeples? Because the third door “allows a proof-of-payment (POP) fare system to work much more efficiently.” Well, isn’t that nice? Too bad AC Transit doesn’t have a proof-of-payment fare system. In other words, there is no advantage to having these buses. Oh, but Peeples will counter, by having the buses we can implement a POP system. See—they do it in foreign countries, even on San Francisco’s Muni rail system.
Earth to Peeples...Earth to Peeples...Can you read me? Have you ever ridden on the N-Judah at rush hour or late at night? Almost everybody cheats. Very few people actually pay the fare, knowing that inspectors are extremely rare. (I’ve never seen one.) Same goes for Paris and the Netherlands, where (in the poorer areas at least) fare-dodging is de rigueur. The Parisian transit authority knows this, and sees giving essentially free transport to the unemployed youth from the banlieus as a form of welfare. But what the result has been is a massive financial crisis in the transit system, which is exactly why (as Peeples foolishly pointed out) they are switching to “smart cards,” to crack down on ubiquitous fare evasion.
As Peeples revealed in his final paragraph, the entire Van Hool fiasco is part of a grandiose attempt at social engineering on his part, when he admits, “I hope that we can...implement POP on an experimental basis soon.” The only way he’ll be able to implement POP is by getting these buses in place first, come hell or high water. And why does Peeples want to implement POP? Hmmm? Well, I’ll leave the readers to come to their own conclusions on that one, other than to say: Encouraging fare evasion is his goal.
As a result, the rest of us have to spend our days unable to find seats, standing shoulder-to-shoulder next to other disgruntled passengers nursing their bruised shins and staring resignedly at the chipper “Bus of the Year, 2003!” signs plastered on every diabolical Van Hool, while the Grand Poobahs down at AC Transit HQ pitably reenact the same failed social engineering blunder that Paris is in the process of abandoning after it practically destroyed their economy.
In other news, the grain harvest was better than ever this year in the Ukraine.
Gerald Mannell
* * * * *
Published Tuesday, May 3, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
PROOF OF PAYMENT
Editors, Daily Planet:
Transit proof of payment (POP) fare systems, derided in recent letters, have been used in civilized countries for decades. Details vary. The general idea is that you buy a ticket before boarding the vehicle. A machine located either at the stop or on board stamps the ticket with the date and time. Inspectors occasionally walk through and ask to see everyone’s tickets. Anyone without a ticket or with one that has expired (time and date no longer valid) is fined an amount intended to discourage repeat offenses.
POP sees use on buses, LRT, ferries, and commuter trains. Its primary objectives are to
1. Improve service quality by minimizing the time spent stopped while passengers board and alight.
2. Allow the operator (driver) to concentrate on driving without worrying about fare collection.
3. Reduce operating cost by increasing the mileage driven and passengers carried during a driver shift.
In other words, transit becomes faster, safer, and cheaper to produce. AC Transit deserves praise for planning ahead to implement these proven improvements.
Robert R. Piper
Berkeley Director of Transportation, 1976-78
* * * * *
Published Tuesday, May 31, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
Readers Sound Off on New AC Transit Buses, Policies
Editors, Daily Planet:
I read with great interest Gerald Mannell’s letter about a “massive financial crisis” in the transit systems of the Netherlands and France, because too many people just don’t pay on the proof-of-payment system. Yet Robert R. Piper (who was Berkeley director of transportation a quarter-century ago?) knows better. He informs us Berkeley primitives that POP “has been used in civilized countries for decades.”
Let me add my voice to Mannell’s.
I just got back from New York City, where I walked and rode buses and subways with my cousins visiting from Italy. Their opinion of “proof of payment” in Italy? A disaster. People don’t pay. When a rare inspector catches one, he tries to collect a fine, but invariably the cheater says he has no money. So, the inspector writes and hands him a citation to pay, which the non-paying rider ignores. On rare occasions the government goes after a non-payer—adding yet more costs to a transit system in financial collapse.
By the way, it was a delight to ride the New York buses (plenty of hand-holds, most seats on the side to make wide aisles) and absolute heaven to ride one of their new electric (not trolley) buses with NO steps up from either entry or exit, a couple of steps up to a few seats in the back of the bus where the floor is higher to accommodate the batteries. A smooth, quiet, non-smelly, comfortable ride, with no need to climb up unless you are willing an able to take those few raised seats at the back. I didn’t manage to get the name of the company that makes them, but I assume the AC Transit officials must know about them—I’d like to know why AC chose the Van Hool buses instead. Could it be because these “civilized” European countries don’t want them anymore?
Dorothy Bryant
* * * * *
Published Friday, June 17, 2005, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
AC TRANSIT
Editors, Daily Planet:
It is pure outrage that recent AC Transit election rhetoric featured the plight of seniors with regard to the adequacy and availability of public transit. We the electorate were given to understand that support for AC Transit meant support for seniors. Sustaining AC Transit meant sustaining seniors—providing for a reliable bus service, safe and accessible. Without such a service, many cannot live independently.
I ride the bus almost daily and there has been a noticeable drop in the number of seniors choosing to make the trip. Who can blame them? The new Van Hool buses (common on our route) are a nightmare for anyone frail, anyone using a cane, or for that matter for any short adult toting a few grocery bags! Instead of sinking gratefully into the front seats, a less-than-able passenger is forced to negotiate a crowded aisle to reach the few spaces provided for the elderly. As this is a journey of many steps, with almost nothing to hold onto, finding one’s place could prove daunting, to say the least. Even then there is no guarantee that those spaces will not be fully occupied by passengers in wheelchairs. In order to continue the ride, what is recommended that the frail passenger do? Risk life and limb hoisting oneself up onto one of the wondrous “crow’s-nest” seats (a Van Hool specialty)? Cling desperately to the nearest available rider? Give up and sit on the floor?
I refuse to believe that anyone charged with making the decision to purchase these new buses devoted even one moment’s thought to such things! And that is scandalous. All of us deserve better.
Karen Keene
Oakland
* * * * *
Published Saturday, November 11, 2006, by the San Francisco Chronicle
Letters to the Editor
BRT mixed reviews
In response to the Nov. 7 article, "Transportation planners cheer bus rapid transit," let me say that I have taken the AC Transit 72-R rapid bus along San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley. As a senior citizen, I find the interior unwelcoming and threatening. There are not enough places to hold on and the bus is likely to start moving before one is seated, particularly if the front seats are filled. Like other newer AC Transit buses, the seats are hard and uncomfortable, not very pleasant for a longer ride.
There are greater and greater cutbacks in routes and frequency of buses. Until recently, there were two bus lines that I could use to get home from the North Berkeley BART station. Now there is none. Instead of opening up, public transportation seems to be cutting back.
Alan R. Meisel
Berkeley
* * * * *
My Word published in Oakland Tribune 2/26/07
AC Transit loyal to 'buses from hell'
It’s great for AC Transit riders that the Capricious Commuter (“New fleet of buses not quite accessible.” 2/5) reported on the special board meeting. The 12 who came were labeled “a crowd” by a board member because rarely does either the public or media attend their meetings. This board receives little public scrutiny.
Riders came to protest the purchase of more Van Hool buses. These are the slick-looking “European-styled” buses with large black-tinted windows. Soon after hitting the road in June 2003, they were dubbed “the buses from hell.” Although made in Belgium, AC Transit devised their torturous one-foot-step-up-and-half-facing-backward seating configuration with a bottleneck entry. Wheelchairs are accommodated with a center door that is troublesome for drivers.
Van Hool’s “pretty healthy share of the U.S. bus market” alluded to in the article, is for motor coaches used by private carriers. AC Transit is the only U.S. public transit agency to import these buses.
AC Transit has a survey that shows 80% of the riders like the buses. (A small detail—the survey was done in 2002, buses began service in June 2003!)
A prototype will be delivered in December, but only minor changes can be made because, according to Kenneth Scheidig, General Counsel, it would “make Van Hool unhappy.”
Furthermore, General Counsel informed the board they had already given approval for purchase of the 50 Van Hools last April and the bus’s frames are being constructed. This was news to the board.
So it seems not only are riders, drivers and mechanics out of the loop but so is the board.
And funding? Federal funds, usual source for bus purchases, are unavailable since these are imported. They had to ask MTC to help with, as one board member put it, “creative fund swaps.”
Remember the ads for their parcel tax in 2004, which pleaded that funds were needed for the elderly and disabled? They were seen getting into a Van Hool bus but it didn’t show them struggling to get into a seat. In fact, that parcel tax simply added a shell to the shell game that enables them to continue to buy buses that insult the elderly and disabled.
Furthermore, as AC Transit receives more funding, it cuts back on service and increases fares.
An MTC commissioner asked why they are importing buses. The General Manager claimed no local supplier responded. He had stacked the cards by requiring buses with three doors, which were not made in the U.S. But now, having discovered the third door is not only unnecessary but also a problem, the new ones will only have two. But they were not put out to bid. On some routes there are low-floor buses made in America that get good reviews from riders and drivers and don’t incur the cost of transatlantic shipping.
Isn’t there a legal obligation for a public agency to put such purchases out to bid? One must always be suspicious of sole source purchases and particularly be suspicious of an obsession to continue purchasing a product that has proved to be such a failure.
Who benefits from this Van Hool deal? It certainly isn’t the riders or drivers. As one driver put it, “when an agency keeps on buying buses the riders and drivers hate, there is definitely something going on.”
Joyce Roy is a semi-retired architect who does not own a car and so is a frequent bus rider. She can be reached at joyceroy@earthlink.net
* * * * *
Berkeley Daily Planet
Commentary: AC Transit’s Obsession With Van Hool Busses
By Joyce Roy (02-27-07)
The Special AC Transit board meeting J. Douglas Allen-Taylor reported on (Feb. 9) was practically a secret meeting. Luckily, two reporters came. The other one, Erik Nelson, from ANG Newspapers, has a blog: www.ibabuzz.com/transportation. He says on his blog, “Van Hool, where have you been all my life (or short career as a blogger)? This hitherto ignored issue has become the biggest thing to hit the blog since its inception!” You can make it even bigger by logging on.
AC Transit gets very little public scrutiny. Can you imagine the outcry if BART, or Caltrain or Muni tried to put in seating that requires a rock-climbing certificate?
In fact, AC Transit has finally acknowledged the barrier these buses present for attracting seniors and the disabled as riders. So what is their solution? To purchase buses which don’t have such barriers? No, it is to go to senior homes, etc., and train people “how to step up the one foot riser, turn and place their fanny on the seat.” (Does this means hiring a lot of mobility trainers?)
When staff was asked wouldn’t it be easier to purchase buses that don’t require training riders? The reply: “The board voted four years ago that they would only buy Van Hool buses.” These buses only went into service in June 2003, so this once and forever decision was made even before the buses had real battleground experience.
Management has tried to get support for the buses through various fabrications. They claim to have a survey that shows 80 percent of the riders like the buses. (A small detail: The survey was done in November 2002 and the buses began service in June 2003!) A survey on the No. 51 line was intended to show that wheelchair loading was faster on the Van Hool than the low-floor NABI, the buses made in Alabama liked by riders and drivers. (A small detail: There are no low-floor NABIs on No. 51 line, only high-floor NABIs!)
Another fabrication is the “Bus of the Year” 2003, 2004, etc., decal on all the Van Hool buses. Europe does give out “Bus of the Year” awards in odd numbered years. Only the 40-foot, three-door bus received such an award and only for performance, not seating arrangement. I’ve even seen a “Bus of the Year 2004” on a 601 articulated bus, easily the Worst Bus in the World. The irony is that changes have been made in the new 40-foot buses, like two doors and greater wheel span because of poor performance.
One board member reported she heard some young riders say they liked the buses and suggested “maybe we can attract younger riders.” (And let the elderly use paratransit?)
This same board member asked if some changes could be made. The new 40-foot bus, as well as the new 30-foot ones in service, has more floor level seats but the same bottleneck at the entry because bench seating was not located there.
Although a proto-type is scheduled for delivery in December, nothing except minor changes can be made because, according to Kenneth Scheidig, General Counsel, it would “make Van Hool unhappy.” (If riders are unhappy that’s OK because, AC Transit is a bus-purchasing agency not a rider-servicing agency.)
Furthermore, General Counsel informed the board they had already given approval for purchase of the 50 Van Hools last April and the bus’ frames are already under construction. This was news to the board.
So it seems not only are riders, drivers and mechanics out of the loop, so is the board. In fact, the board is not even privy to the contracts; they only have summaries to rely on and do not know the actual costs. Despite this and the fact that the three new members didn’t even seem to have ridden the buses, the vote was unanimous.
So how are they being paid for? Transit agencies have three pots-of-money, one limited to operational expenditures, one limited to capital costs and one that is flexible. Because funding for operational costs are harder to acquire, most agencies use the flexible funds for operations. The biggest source for capital costs are federal funds but they can only be used for domestically produced vehicles. So AC Transit has had to ask MTC to help with, as one board member described it, “creative fund swaps.”
So are they dipping into funds that could be used for operations? Could this explain why as AC Transit receives more funding, it cuts back on service and increases fares? Could this and the fact that riders hate these buses, explain why, while ridership in other transit agencies is increasing, AC Transit’s local ridership is down. Even ridership on the much-touted 72R, the precursor of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, is down.
The goal of the BRT is to attract new riders. Wouldn’t a bus people like help? And because of the time it takes people to get seated it will be BST, Bus Slow Transit.
Remember the ads for the parcel tax in 2004, which pleaded that funds were needed for the elderly and disabled? They were seen getting into a Van Hool bus but it didn’t show them struggling to get into a seat. In fact, that parcel tax gave AC Transit funds that added a shell to their shell game that enables them to continue to buy buses that insult the elderly and disabled.
And when the FTA, Federal Transit Agency, doesn’t fund a bus, they have no control over its quality or ADA compliance, as riders who complained to the FTA discovered.
An MTC commissioner asked why they are importing buses. In the response from Rick Fernandez, General Manager, he claimed “the local manufacturer decided not to submit a bid.” How could they, the GM stacked the cards against domestic suppliers by requiring buses with three doors, which were not manufactured in the USA. The GM now realizes the three doors were not necessary and are, in fact, a problem. But the new buses still were not put out to bid. On some routes there are low-floor buses made in America that get good reviews from riders and drivers and don’t incur the cost of transatlantic shipping. So the commissioner’s question remains unanswered.
Isn’t there a legal obligation for a public agency to put such purchases out to bid? One must always be suspicious of sole source purchases but one must particularly be suspicious of an obsession to continue purchasing a product that has proved to be such a failure.
Who benefits from this Van Hool deal? It certainly isn’t the riders or drivers. As one driver put it, “when an agency keeps on buying buses the riders and drivers hate, there is definitely something going on.”
Joyce Roy can be contacted at joyceroy@earthlink.net.
* * * * *
Letters to the Editor
Published Tuesday, March 20, 2007, in the Berkeley Daily Planet
AC TRANSIT BUSES
Editors, Daily Planet:
About the recent letters on bus transit: Is there any reason AC transit doesn’t use Gillig buses? Why not buy local as well as American?
Howard Carrington
El Cerrito
* * * * *
Published in Oakland Tribune 5/15/07
MY WORD
Don't change bus routes with little warning
By Paul Bloom
In two weeks the 43 bus line will cease to exist. The 40 will end its run in downtown Oakland. The 15 will run from downtown Oakland to downtown Berkeley only. Come June 3rd, dozens of route changes will throw thousands of passengers into turmoil and confusion. Many of these changes will necessitate people who enjoyed taking one bus from East Oakland to school or work in Berkeley now having to wait for a second bus and transfer.
How does a rider find out about these planned changes, two weeks away? There are no fliers or posters on the affected buses, and no schedules available for lines (such as the 19) which will see their routes changes, and no schedules for new bus lines which will replace portions of the cancelled ones.
Here's how I found out about them.
Riding up Shattuck Ave. last week on the 43 bus, as we approached Berkeley, I began to notice sheets of paper like shrouds or hoods draped over bus stop signs. Getting off the bus, I peered up at a sign which said in English only: "Effective June 3 Line 18 will be stopping here and line 43 will not stop here."
The next day I asked the driver of the 43 bus about the changes. She couldn't tell me anything, but suggested I look on the internet. I refrained from pointing out that lots of bus riders don't have cars, and don't have computers either. That evening at a friend's I visited AC Transit's website. Not a word about the proposed changes!
A couple of days later, I struck up a conversation with a # 15 bus driver. "These people," he said of the AC Transit Board and management, "don't have a clue. They want to slice up the routes and make drivers jump from bus to bus, cutting down on our break time for the sake of some bottom line with no consideration for bus riders. People won't be able to get to work. They don't care."
Interestingly, although North Oakland and Berkeley bus stops have been papered with signs for more than a week, as of this writing (May 14) there are no signs at bus stops in Foothill Blvd (East Oakland) or on Telegraph Ave. announcing that the 43 line will be terminated.
This is perhaps the sixth time in the past 2 or 3 years that the AC Transit board has dropped some major changes on a bus riding public without consultation and with minimal notification. Often new schedules haven't been printed months after new routes went into effect.
These people who are constantly monkeying with bus routes and schedules don't even ride the buses. Beside the arrogance of their attempts at social engineering, the rudeness of their failure to notify the public is perhaps trivial.
This is the same board, after all, which brought us the much-detested buses from Belgium. One wonders how many trips to Europe were paid for by Van Hool Bus Co. or by the county, and how many dinners bought, how much wine drunk, before board members signed that contract. Stay tuned.
—————————
Paul Bloom (paulbloom@yahoo.com) is a bus rider and freelance writer who lives in Oakland.* * * * *
Berkeley Daily Planet
How AC Transit Can Cut Expenses Instead Of Raising Fares
By Joyce Roy
Thursday May 15, 2008
Just before their May 21 public meeting on raising fares, AC Transit is proposing to buy more Van Hool buses the riders and drivers hate. Nineteen more of the no-bid buses imported from Belgium at $577,739/bus for a total of $10,977,041.
What timing!
Instead of soaking the riders, AC Transit should start exercising some fiscal responsibility. Here is how they can cut costs instead of raising fares:
1) The 19 buses they propose to purchase are the 60-foot low-aisle articulated buses you find bouncing along with only a few passengers on routes that only need 40-foot buses. They are put on those routes because they purchased too many of them. They are inappropriate for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) because they require more loading time; the only floor-level seats are in the second part of the buses. So instead of buying more, they should be selling some. There is a used bus market. And it should be easy to sell them for a good price because the board president, Chris Peeples, has declared them “the best buses in the world.”
2) AC Transit says a major thing that is driving their costs up is the price of fuel. So why haven’t they been purchasing hybrid electric low-floor buses that would improve fuel consumption by 50 percent, reduce exhaust emissions, and provide a quieter and smoother ride? That may be because Van Hool does not make them and AC Transit has a “special partnership” with Van Hool. They are the only bus agency to have a “special partnership” with a bus manufacturer. USA manufacturers have had such engines for over 10 years and the FTA (Federal Transit Administration) would pay up to 100 percent of the cost of USA hybrid buses because they want to encourage cleaner buses!
3) Stop using funds that were designated for operating costs to purchase buses. Some of us worked hard for the passage of Measure B that provides operating funds. The public also voted for AA/BB parcel taxes for “bus services for school children, seniors and people with disabilities,” but these funds may be buying buses that are treacherous for “seniors and people with disabilities.” These funds that should be set aside for operating costs are simply put into a general fund. Since the (FTA) will not fund imported buses, AC Transit treats the general fund like a big cookie jar and dips into it to buy these no-bid buses that cost about $100,000 more than American made/assembled buses. This may not be strictly illegal but it is a betrayal of public trust.
4) Stop sending everyone and their dog on trips to Belgium/Paris. These trips by management and 60 employees have cost taxpayers over $1 million. Evidently Van Hool needs a lot of supervision. AC Transit considers this an insignificant cost; just a drop in the bucket. But they are asking riders to drop more money in the bucket to pay for these junkets.
AC Transit has become little more than a bus-purchasing agency. The general manager makes no bones about his plans to work for the distributor of Van Hool buses when he retires. Some might consider that to be a conflict of interest.
It is about time AC Transit became accountable to the public. It takes some moxie to ask riders to pay for their mismanagement of funds.
Joyce Roy is an Oakland resident
* * * * *
June 2, 2008
BRT AND ARTICULATED BUSES
Editors, Daily Planet:
I cannot possibly be the only one to observe, day after day, the extent to which AC Transit has flooded some routes with numbers of buses, increasingly the massive articulated buses, often traveling in tandem, sometimes side-by-side on our major thoroughfares. I see these buses daily from my office on Telegraph Avenue and frequently try to count the number of passengers and often see totally empty buses following other totally empty buses. Comparatively few buses are even moderately full, even during so-called commute hours, and often empty or nearly so at mid-day, when demand is at its lowest level. Often these buses are traveling at higher speeds than necessary and have become an increased danger to bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the wider thoroughfares.
Is there some conspiracy by AC Transit to make Berkeley residents so accustomed to this greatly increased bus traffic that the creation of special bus lanes will seem to be a relief? Why is it necessary to have such large buses? And where are the statistics to show that they are needed now, let alone in the future, even if there were reduced automobile lanes of traffic?
It seems to me the entire BRT plan and the purchase of large numbers of super-sized buses is simply a case of needing to find a way to spend the grant monies being offered for mass transit programs. There must be better alternatives.
I always thought AC Transit was a well-managed public transportation system. I am no longer convinced this is the case.
Michael Yovino-Young
* * * * *
AC Transit does 180 on buses
Erik N. Nelson
Oakland Tribune
Article Created: 06/25/2008 08:40:10 PM PDT
The controversy over Belgian-made Van Hool buses bubbled over at the AC Transit's Board of Directors meeting Wednesday evening, with a solid majority rejecting an order for 19 new 60-foot buses.
The big-windowed European buses, which have come to dominate the East Bay's urban landscape in recent years, were vigorously opposed by a small, but vocal, group of bus riders and transit activists. They charged that the buses were poorly designed, leading to injurious spills for many elderly and disabled riders as the buses lurched people out of seats on high platforms.
The board also voted to set hearings on a new parcel tax for property owners of the district, which covers western Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The tax could rise by $2, $3 or $4 a month, at most doubling to a total of $96 a year.
Board members hope that voters approve the tax to prevent service cuts and perhaps stave off fare increases in the face of a $19 million budget shortfall created by proposed state transit assistance cuts as well as increases in fuel and employee health care costs.
And the board approved a new three-year labor contract with the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents the district's bus drivers. The contract would give drivers 1½-percent raises each of those years while expanding retirement benefits.
The decision against the purchase of the Van Hools, which cost $574,000 each, was a major win for transit activist Joyce Roy, who said she plans to run for the at-large seat on the board in November now occupied by Board President Chris Peeples, a staunch believer in Van Hools.
"I think this is a real victory for the riders," she said after the 4-2 vote with one abstention. "This is the first time that the board has said 'no' to the management on these buses."
AC Transit General Manager Rick Fernandez was nonplussed at the board's about-face, which will mean having to seek bids for the new buses.
"We're going to go through all of this effort for 19 buses," he said after seeing the Van Hools' support disintegrating. "It doesn't make any sense."
Board members gave different reasons for their opposition, with Ward 3 Director Elsa Ortiz — covering Alameda and parts of Oakland — calling for an outright bidding process. Ward 1 Director Joe Wallace — representing West Contra Costa County and most of Berkeley — said he couldn't vote for the purchase "because of the floating BS that's going around" regarding the quality and cost of the buses.
The Van Hool conflict has raised more than questions about safety, comfort and cost, however. Opponents have suggested that AC Transit staff might be deriving personal benefit from an ongoing no-bid relationship with the bus maker.
A series of articles earlier this year in the East Bay Express weekly newspaper uncovered financial records showing the general manager had billed the agency for accommodation in a Paris hotel, which Fernandez explained he needed to get over jet lag.* * * * *
7/24/08
AC TRANSIT
Editors, Daily Planet:
In order to be a barely adequate transit system, AC Transit must arrive on time, have enough routes to serve the entire service area at about quarter-mile intervals, and operate enough hours to get passengers to their destinations and back. Any new ideas that compromise those core necessities needs to be rethought.
I am fully in favor of taking steps to get the buses running faster and more frequently, but not at the expense of their continuing to serve all the neighborhoods (although routes may need to be reconfigured from time to time), nor at the expense of reducing hours of service. If people cannot use the bus to do all their traveling within the area, they have no incentive to get rid of their cars, and if you have a car, you find yourself using it, even if a bus is available.
The BRT concept puts the cart before the horse. It may become necessary someday for buses to have a dedicated lane, but it certainly is not now. Even the so-called rapid buses are delayed more by passenger boarding problems than by traffic problems. The odd configuration of the seats in the Van Hool buses, and the fact that the driver has to leave the cab to operate the lift only makes them worse.
If AC transit wants to make improvements, they need to see the system from the point of view of the users. No matter how popular the Van Hool is in Europe, it doesn’t cut it in this area. I saw how the Van Hool is used in Paris, and there are two whopping differences. First, they have almost no seats, like a New York subway car. Secondly, they do not provide for disabled passengers, except that the jump seats are reserved for seniors.
I am not at all suggesting that the seats be configured like the European coaches. The cultures are different, so our buses need to reflect our culture. Americans like to keep a greater distance from strangers when face to face, so half the facing seats go unused while people crowd into the aisles. Also, I don’t know who decided it was a good idea to have seniors climb up onto raised seats, but trust me, it is not.
I wonder what happened to the Bus Riders’ Union. The union could conduct a real rider survey, asking the questions that the riders actually want to be asked and making sure the sample truly reflected the entire composition of the community, and publishing the results in general circulation pre so that everyone could see them.
I resent the implication that anyone who is opposed to BRT or the Van Hools does not want the bus service to be improved. Many riders just don’t think the BRT concept or the Van Hool buses are an improvement.
Marcella Murphy* * * * *
Berkeley Daily Planet
Questioning the AC Transit-Van Hool Partnership
By Joyce Roy
Tuesday August 05, 2008
AC Transit began displaying a prototype Van Hool 40-foot, two-door, low-aisle bus in June. After a few mechanical fixes, it is now ready for the rubber to hit the road. And they have prepared a survey for riders.
But, it seems, from Item 7 on this Wednesday’s AC Transit Board agenda, which talks about the buses’ delivery schedule, it is already a done deal! So before it has been road tested and the survey completed, they are being fabricated in Belgium! And without a true test—a rider comparison to an American true low-floor bus that does not require people to step up to seats on pedestals or ride backwards.
And the board does not even know how much they cost! At the April 4, 2007 board meeting, the general manager stated that they would cost $400,000 each “including delivery and sales tax.” Since then, the board has approved adding air-conditioning at the cost of about $16,000. So it seems to be about $416,000/bus, but have they seen an invoice? The order is for 50 buses even though only eight 40-foot buses are due for replacement. And with little or no increases in local ridership, why would more buses be needed?
So these 50 unneeded buses would cost $20.8 million—about what they say their budget gap is!
All the buses should be air-conditioned. Every new one and, since AC Transit receives generous federal funds for preventative maintenance, they can retrofit existing buses. In fact, Cal-OSHA has cited AC Transit for violation of their heat illness standards. Heat inside buses can be as high as 107 particularly in the Hayward area. Hearings on this are continuing.
AC Transit has been on a bus-buying binge since its “special partnership” began with Van Hool in 2002. It has driven their decisions. While other agencies are buying diesel electric hybrid buses to cut down on fuel costs, air pollution and greenhouse gases, AC Transit has continued to buy diesel buses because Van Hool does not make hybrid buses. Van Hool is in the driver’s seat in the “special partnership.”
After years of pressure, particularly from me, this proto-type 40-foot, two-door bus is inching closer to the American low-floor design. But it is too little, too late. They managed to get more seats at floor level but because of the awkward location of the engine in the middle of the bus, people in wheelchairs are relegated to the left over space opposite the motor. This makes accessing the space more difficult and their vision blocked by the motor. And if there are two wheelchairs, one has to ride backwards and passengers have to exit between them.
If more 40-foot buses are really needed, why not go for the real deal instead of a pale imitation and stop sending jobs overseas! An American true low-floor bus places equipment under a low mezzanine level in the rear instead of in the middle of the bus and they have no seats facing backwards or on pedestals. And they cost about $75,000 less!
Another waste of public funds is the fuel cell program. While most bus agencies with fuel cell programs are cutting back or eliminating them because they are very expensive and ineffective, AC Transit is expanding theirs. Presently it consists of three Van Hool fuel cell buses that keep breaking down. And the hydrogen for them is produced from natural gas, a by-product of which is methane gas, one of the worse greenhouse gases. In spite of this experience, AC Transit has ordered eight more Van Hool fuel cell buses at $3 million each! That $24 million could have purchased 48 American low-floor diesel hybrid electric buses with up to 100 percent federal funding. According to the AC Transit staff member who manages funding, the Van Hool buses are paid for with operating funds, which are then back-filled with federal preventative maintenance funds. But, she insists, all the federal funds for preventative maintenance are used for maintenance! Amazing!
On the November ballot, AC Transit will be asking for an extension on their parcel tax with an increase of a mere $4/month, the cost of a gallon of gas. As a candidate for the Board, I would like to see that pass and it requires 67 percent. This order of 50 unnecessary buses is a test for the board. The ballot statement reads, in part, “To preserve affordable local public transportation that allows seniors and people with disabilities to remain independent ……and all money staying local.” If the board votes for these untested buses that make bus riding difficult for “seniors and people with disabilities” and sends funds overseas, will voters trust them with their money?
I am going to try hard to convince voters to vote for the parcel tax by informing them that there are now three on the board, including Greg Harper, that are questioning the Van Hool partnership and if I am elected there will be four. And on a seven-member board it takes four to tango. But it would certainly help if the present board would do the right thing NOW!
Joyce Roy is the Reform candidate for the at-large seat on the AC Transit board.
* * * * *
News Updates: Berkeley Daily Planet
AC Transit Van Hool Survey Comes Too Late
By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor
Saturday August 09, 2008
AC Transit says it wants to get community feedback on the re-engineered Van Hool buses soon to go out on local routes, but the timing of the district’s public input process appears to make it unlikely that any suggestions or criticisms will come in time to have much effect on the buses’ manufacture.
In a controversial deal that was widely reported in the Daily Planet last year, AC Transit is buying 66 modified 30- and 40-foot buses from the Belgian-based Van Hool company, partly in connection with a complicated arrangement in which the district is selling off 16 early-retired buses manufactured by North American Bus Industries (NABI).
The new buses have several design changes from the current Van Hool buses being operated by the district, put in place after the district received widespread criticism of the Van Hools’ original design.
A prototype of the new 40-footers was delivered to AC Transit in mid-June, and the district made the new bus available for community inspection and walk-throughs at its June 11 board meeting. But the prototype has been largely invisible since then, with staff members telling reporters in late June that there were no plans in place at the time to display the prototype in other parts of the community, or to put it in service on any of the district’s bus lines so that riders could see the changes.
The prototype delivery and beginning of bus manufacturing had originally been scheduled for April.
At Wednesday night’s AC Transit board meeting, staff members said that the prototype 40-foot Van Hool was now being put in operation on the district’s 51 line exclusively. That line runs from downtown Oakland to downtown Berkeley on Broadway and College Avenue. AC Transit Marketing and Communications Director Jamie Levin said that the bus would also be available for public inspection in August at two locations in Berkeley.
Also on Wednesday night, AC Transit staff introduced a three-page “Rider Survey” brochure on the new 40-foot buses in connection with the prototype public viewing and 51 line operation. The survey asks riders to rate the new Van Hool bus on a 5-1 scale (from “I like it very much” to “I dislike it very much”) on various exterior and interior aspects.
General Manager Rick Fernandez said that the first five buses could be delivered to AC Transit as early as Aug. 25, with the remainder of the order coming from Belgium in staggered three week intervals.
After board members Elsa Ortiz, Rebecca Kaplan, and Rocky Fernandez (not to be confused with General Manager Rick Fernandez) questioned staff on the timing of the bus manufacture and delivery and the district rider surveys, board president Chris Peeples estimated that one-half of the order would be either delivered or in the midst of shipping by the projected mid-September completion of the surveys.
That raised the question of the purpose of the survey, which was supposed to give the district feedback in time for possible modifications of the new 40-footers while they are still in manufacture.
General Manager Fernandez defended the timing of the survey, saying that any possible changes could be made by AC Transit itself after delivery, or by Van Hool’s North American distributor, ABC Company of Minnesota.
Fernandez also minimized the possibility of any possible changes in the buses’ manufacture, saying that “we have already made a lot of changes in the design of this bus in response to community concerns,” and that “when we made the bus buy [last year], we said we’d have a prototype, but very few changes could be made afterwards.” Fernandez also said that the district has already received verbal comments on the new bus, and that “everything has been positive.”
In the discussions over the contract last year, Fernandez had made it plain to board members that once the prototype was completed, structural changes to the buses would be impossible, and that only a limited modification of seating arrangements or other interior design could be done.
The board briefly considered delaying the manufacture and delivery until the rider surveys could be completed, but later approved the current delivery schedule on a 6-0-1 vote, with Kaplan abstaining. Kaplan said that she didn’t think it was an issue of how many structural changes to the manufacture the bus makers could do at this late date, but rather “a public participation issue.”
When AC Transit put its prototype new 40-foot Van Hool bus on display last June, staff members seemed more intent on blaming changes on the district’s most frequent critic than on explaining the new design to passengers.
During the June 11 AC Transit Board meeting, residents were allowed to walk through the prototype to review the changes, with staff members available to answer questions.
But when one older man asked why the fold-down, side-facing seats in the front of the bus were so low, saying that it was difficult for senior riders to get up and down in the seats, AC Marketing and Communications Director Jamie Levin suggested that he should “ask Joyce Roy. She’s responsible for the changes.”
The staff member continued that “I guarantee she won’t like this bus, either,” adding that “she’s been wrong on everything so far.”
Roy, a retired architect and local public transit advocate, has been a frequent and persistent critic of the Van Hools at board meetings. In 2000, she lost a race for the AC Transit Board to current Ward 2 Director Greg Harper. She is running against board chair Chris Peeples in the November election for the at-large board seat.
Several board and staff members have acknowledged at district board meetings that many of the changes in the new 40-foot Van Hools were made at Roy’s suggestion.
Some of the major inside changes between the original 40-foot Van Hools and the new buses now in manufacture:
Original 40-footers:
33 Seats
Motor in the back
All back seats have step-ups to reach them
10 seats face backwards
New 40-footers:
35 Seats
Motor in the middle
Final back seats have no step-ups
7 seats face backwards
New 40-footers have a wider wheel base than the originals. Drivers had cited the smaller wheel base as a major problem in the originals, making the ride less steady, and making it harder for the bus to go around sharp corners.
* * * * *
Letter in Aug. 14 Berkeley Daily Planet:
MY BUS
Editors, Daily Planet:
Since I am credited/blamed for the new 40-foot Van Hools, here is what a bus really designed by Joyce Roy would be like:
JR TRUE low-floor 40-footers; 35 Seats (with two wheelchairs, 29 seats); motor and other equipment under a 12-14 inch high mezzanine level behind the rear door; no seats on pedestals; no seats that face backwards.
Plus:
No bottleneck at the entry. The 36-inch clearance allows wheelchairs to enter via a ramp at the front. Just beyond the entry, the perimeter (bench) seating on both sides means riders can have shopping carts or service dogs in front of them without hindering the movement of other passengers; people in wheelchairs can have the full width of the bus to maneuver with no motor opposite their location to cramp their movement; view is not cut off by motor.
But I don’t have to design that bus, because it is already being produced. In addition to AC Transit’s low-floor NABIs, which went in service in 2000, I have been able to check out two newer versions.
One was a 40-foot bus on the VTA express route between San Jose and Fremont BART. It had a good ride and, of course, air-conditioning. At the end of the run, I asked the driver how he liked the bus. He was very happy with it, even mentioned that it was easy to accommodate wheelchairs. But said there was one problem, it was so quiet that people sometimes didn’t hear it coming! It is a bus that Transbay riders could even be happy with.
The other was a 35-foot County Connection bus parked at the Martinez Amtrak Station. The driver kindly let me climb aboard. He also gave it a good review.
Both buses had really c-o-m-f-o-r-t-a-b-l-e seats. Somehow, the Van Hools have AC Transit’s most uncomfortable seats. Even the old plastic seats, in my opinion, are more comfortable.
And, Gillig made both buses. Not surprising since their manufacturing facility is in our backyard, Hayward.
I felt jealous of the people who have the pleasure of riding those buses. I think AC Transit riders deserve them and they would attract new riders.
Joyce Roy
Reform candidate for the at-large seat on the AC Transit board
* * * * *Columns:
The Public Eye: The View from One Bus Driver’s Seat
By Zelda Bronstein
Thursday September 04, 2008
Anthony Rodgers has been an AC Transit bus driver for 18 years. I met Rodgers a few weeks ago when I boarded his westbound No. 18 bus in downtown Berkeley.
Our initial exchange was not promising: He wouldn’t accept the stub of the BART to Bus/Bus to BART transfer that I’d plucked out of the machine at the downtown Berkeley BART station earlier in the day. I’d used the other half to board an eastbound No. 18 for $1.50 (25 cents under the regular bus fare). I told Rodgers that the eastbound driver had assured me that I could use the stub to transfer to another bus. Not so, he said. You have to pay the full fare of $1.75. You should have skipped the BART to Bus ticket, paid the full fare on the first bus and asked for an AC transfer to use on the second.
This news was disconcerting—I’d just returned from Vancouver, British Columbia, where a single TransLink ticket allows you to go from the bus to the Skytrain to the Seabus. But I paid the full fare, sat down near the front and struck up a conversation with Rodgers about the sometimes baffling ways of public transit in our part of the world. By the time I got off on Solano Avenue, he’d agreed to an off-the-bus interview.
“What my passengers want,” he told me, when I’d reached him on the phone, “is an uneventful ride. The greatest compliment I can have is when someone who isn’t drunk falls asleep on my bus.” For that to happen, riders have to feel confident that a bus driver is going to get them to their destinations on time. “The bottom line is that passengers want schedule adherence.”
Certainly that’s my top priority. When I’ve timed a walk to the bus-stop after consulting the official AC Transit schedule, it’s annoying and, depending on where I’m headed, even anxiety-making, to find myself waiting (and waiting) for a bus that’s late. Before talking to Rodgers, I couldn’t see much farther than the vacant bus lane. Now my perspective has broadened to include the view from the driver’s seat.
Punctuality, Rogers said, has a lot to do with a driver’s relationship to the particular bus line he’s driving. One source of delay is a poorly laid-out route. Take the 51 bus, which “carries more people than any other on the property.” It has a very long run: It begins at Broadway and Blanding in Alameda, goes up Broadway in Oakland to Rockridge BART, traverses College to Bancroft, goes down Bancroft to downtown Berkeley BART and then down University to San Pablo and ends up at Third and University. The line is both long and varied, heavily patronized on congested College Avenue but used by fewer passengers in other areas.
The unevenness creates challenges for bus operators. Driving on the 51, “you sometimes find yourself ahead of schedule,” but in the heavily trafficked parts of the route, “you have to put your foot on it: You have to drive as fast as is commensurate with safety.” Rodgers would like to see the 51 line divided in half, split at Rockridge BART, since the passenger load considerably lightens going toward Alameda.
A driver’s performance is also affected by his familiarity with a line. “There’s a certain groove you get into driving a bus,” said Rodgers. When you’re driving a familiar route, “you know when to slow down, when to speed up. It’s the same when you’re driving your own car. As a bus driver, you also know where you’re likely to get a lot of passengers, and where you’re likely to get less.” That sort of local knowledge helps a driver to stick to the schedule.
Rodgers thinks that kind of familiarity can be hard for an AC Transit bus operator to achieve, because assignments are likely to change. Every three months, drivers sign up for routes. The more seniority you have, the greater your options. There’s no guarantee you’re going to get the same assignment you got in the past. “In the ’70s the lines didn’t change very much.” In those days, an operator would drive the same line for 10 or 15 years. “That person would know how to keep the line on time.”
Besides facilitating an intimate aquaintance with a route, the consistent assignments fostered a sense of community between drivers and their passengers. Rodgers recalled a colleague who drove the O line from Alameda to San Franciso every morning. “If he called in sick for more than one day, his passengers would call AC Transit to find out if he was okay. There was a community that doesn’t exist anymore. I’d like to build that up again.” One way to do so, he said, is “to freeze the schedules,” so that operators can drive the same route longer than three months at a time.
I wonder if AC Transit shares Rodgers’ interest in promoting camaraderie between bus drivers and riders, given the lively grassroots campaigns now being waged against the agency’s Van Hool buses, as well as its plans for a $400,000 Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] line with two bus-only lanes going down Telegraph Avenue. This fall the Berkeley electorate will weigh in on a citizens’ initiative requiring BRT to be subject to a popular vote. Also on the November ballot is the AC Transit Board election, featuring a reform slate consisting of at-large challenger Joyce Roy and Ward 2 incumbent Greg Harper, that seeks greater agency accountability toward both bus operators and passengers.
“My passengers aren’t asking for Bus Rapid Transit,” Rodgers told me. Nor are they fans of the Van Hool buses. His older passengers find the raised seats hard to negotiate. And with their lack of air conditioning and “tons of glass,” the Van Hools are unpleasant for everyone on hot days. They’re particularly onerous for bus operators, who are forbidden by AC Transit management to drink water while they’re driving, even at a stop sign.
Rodgers belongs to the Transit Workers Action Caucus, which is working on heat-related stress on buses. “We do need to be able to drink water out there on the line,” he says. He noted that AC Transit is appealing the citation it’s received from the California Divison of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) for inadequately protecting drivers from heat-related illness.
But for Rodgers, the buck doesn’t stop with the transit agency. “The problems of AC Transit are in the final analysis our problems. Mencken said Americans get the government they deserve. There are a lot of people who are not paying attention to AC Transit. They don’t like what they see, but they’re not working for solutions. I urge people to get out and vote. Pay attention to the AC Transit Board of Directors and who voted for what.” “Joyce Roy,” he added, “is one of the solutions.”
I was already planning to vote for Roy and the BRT initiative; talking with Rodgers reconfirmed those choices. I can’t vote for Harper, because I don’t live in his ward. Anyone who does should support both of these candidates. Their victories plus the passage of the BRT measure would greatly improve the likelihood that we—meaning bus riders and operators—will get the accountability from AC Transit that we really do deserve.
Note: According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission website,TransLink is currently accepted by AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit and Ferry. BART, Muni and Caltrain will start accepting TransLink in 2008, followed by SamTrans and VTA in 2009.* * * * *
[And lastly, and out of sequence, one of my favorites:]
From the Capricious Commuter blog:
Atheist Finds God
jerry mandel Says:
March 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I was a 71 yr old lifetime atheist in fair health until I rode my first Van Hool on the 51 line. Sure enough, I found God and improved my health. Now, when my bus approaches I pray my trip will be safe, and when I exit I drop to my knees and thank God all my bones and joints are ok. The more trips I took the harder I prayed. My dr. says my cholesterol has dropped 35 points since I started walking more. My medical bils are lower, too, except for my shrink who can’t figure out the meaning of the nightmare when, on my way to heaven, Satan thrusts me back left and I reach for something to hold on to and it is not easy to get to, and just as I grab for it Satan suddenly jerks me front right. . . . Then I awake and thank God and Van Hool, too, for having body, at least, in perfect shape.* * * * *
It is unfortunate that a fallacious claim was resorted to in the Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure VV, that is:
*
AC Transit consistently ranks as one of the best bus systems in the nation. For 4 of the last 7 years, AC Transit has been named “best of the best” bus systems in the nation.
I am sure the people who signed the Rebuttal were unaware how often hype substitutes at AC Transit for real achievements. This claim is simply false. APTA (American Public Transit Association) does give a “best of the best” award each year to a different transit agency but AC Transit NEVER won it! Check it out: http://www.apta.com/services/awards/
AC Transit has purportedly been a winner in some APTA International Bus Roadeos that test the skills of bus operators and maintenance teams, meaning they have some excellent bus operators and maintenance teams.
http://www.apta.com/conferences_calendar/busroad/
In fact when the word ‘best’ is used by AC Transit, the word ‘worst’ can be substituted, as in the “the Van Hool buses are the best in the world” and the hydrogen fuel cell program which consists of three Van Hool fuel cell buses that break down frequently, is “the best fuel cell program in the world.”
AC Transit even makes up awards for itself and puts decals on its buses. Not only the “best of the best” but “Bus of the Year” awards. In Europe there are “Bus of the Year” awards given in odd number years and the 3-door 40-ft Van Hool bus won it for performance in 2003. [The irony is that AC Transit stopped purchasing those buses because of poor performance.] But no “Bus of the Year” award was given in 2004 and certainly not for a 60’ ft Van Hool articulated bus, which these decals are on.
But, I still say, VOTE FOR VV!! It will be hard to make the needed changes at AC Transit that will lead to true achievements, like increased ridership!
