 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
WEB UPDATE
Published in the Berkeley Daily Planet approx. 11/11/08The ink is barely dry on AC Transit’s Measure VV and Van Hool can’t wait to get a return on their investment. The ABC Company that “sponsored’ Measure VV is the agent for Van Hool buses. (I wonder if it would have passed if more people knew that!) So with indecent haste, the General Manager is asking the board to approve more Van Hools at this Wednesday’s Board Meeting!!
First, the General Manager wants the board to authorize him to negotiate a contract for 45-ft Van Hool “suburban style commuter buses” for use on Transbay routes. Except they aren’t; they are Greyhound-like over-the-road buses like the MCI, inappropriate particularly when you consider most of them begin and end on hilly, winding roads. The reason AC Transit bought 30-ft buses for routes in the hills is because residents complained about big 40-ft buses so now 45-ft buses are proposed! AND, in May the board had not settled on 45-ft buses and they asked for a competitive process. The Van Hools would cost $511,119 each and an American built and tested 40-ft suburban style commuter bus would cost about $340,000!
Then there is a re-run of the General Manager’s request in May to purchase 19 more of the Van Hool 60-ft articulated buses that were nixed by the board. They do not need them now anymore than they did in May and the board asked him to verify the need for them. He simply says, “A compelling need still exists to purchase nineteen (19) articulated buses to complete the fleet composition plan and replace aging buses.” In other words, trust me!
The cost of each 60-ft articulated would be $592,289 so $11,253,491 for 19 buses. That will use up most of the $14,000,000 they are expecting from Measure VV this year.
When, and if, they do need more 60-ft articulated buses they should buy a true low floor bus like the one produced by New Flyer which is readily accessible to the elderly and disabled and, in fact, everyone so dwell time would decrease. Or was the Measure VV claim that it would keep “seniors and people with disabilities independent” just hype to get people to vote for more funds to buy buses seniors find treacherous?
Let’s hope the board sees though these charades and stops letting Van Hool and their willing accomplices, the General Manager and General Counsel, drive AC Transit’s decisions. If they don’t, AC Transit should consider changing its name to VH Transit.
In this last election, 113,003 thinking voters voted for change at AC Transit.
Joyce Roy,
Founder of AC Transit Activists for Change (ACTAC)* * * * *
AC Transit ignores transbay riders in bus deal
Oakland Tribune , Dec 4, 2008 by Joyce RoyAC TRANSIT CAN ignore the needs of local riders with impunity -- most have no other choice. But AC Transit also ignores its transbay riders, who have choices and put more in their coffers per ride. You would think they would value them and get their input on decisions that affect them. But they do not.
AC Transit can easily get input from transbay riders. A Transbay Task Force meets every month in San Francisco. November's meeting, with large attendance, practically became a riot. The issue was the assignment of buses on the routes. Many riders have had to suffer, and they do not suffer gladly, the Van Hool buses that are even more treacherous as they bounce along freeways. The comfortable buses are the 45-foot over-the-road MCI coaches. These Greyhound-like coaches, many of which have to wend their way through winding hill roads, are designed for long journeys on highways An appropriate commuter bus that is less costly to purchase, to operate and maintain is a 40- foot suburban bus like those on most Golden Gate routes, which have comfortable high-back seats, overhead lights, air conditioning, etc. Many American manufacturers produce them.
But on Nov. 12, the day before this meeting, the board made a decision about the purchase of new transbay buses without consulting them. The ink was barely dry on Measure VV and General Manager Rick Fernandez wanted to give the ABC Company, the Van Hool distributor, which sponsored the measure, a hefty return on their investment. He has been manipulating the board to purchase Van Hool buses for over seven years. But, for the first time since the initial Van Hool order, the board at its May 14 meeting had asked management to bid for both 40- and 45-foot buses. Management ignored the board and instead negotiated with three manufacturers of 45-foot buses, finding them all wanting except Van Hool. Surprise. And the board seemed to have forgotten their directive.
So they voted for 40 45-foot Van Hool over-the-road coaches at $511,119 each for a total of $20,444,760, more than the $14 million annual taxes expected from VV. To compare, the Gillig 40-foot suburban bus exhibited at the American Public Transit Association Expo in San Diego, which most board members attended, costs $349,168 plus $75 delivery to Oakland. So for 40 buses only $13,969,720; therefore, this bid squandered $6,475,040 that could have provided more service. Or, for the cost of the 40 Van Hool buses, 59 American suburban buses could have been purchased and kept good manufacturing jobs in America.
Transbay riders need to get more vocal. Do you think Muni could get by with a "special partnership" between management and a bus manufacturer? No, it would be on the front page of the newspaper and heads would roll.
Most bus manufacturers believe they must please riders, drivers and mechanics but Van Hool ignores them. They need only please the general manager and he is easy to please. He expects to work for ABC when he retires in a few years. And he already seems to be working for them.
Joyce Roy is an Oakland resident.
* * * * *Chronicle’s Matier & Ross in their column on October 25 2009:
Bus departure: The official word was that AC Transit General Manager Rick Fernandez was quitting to "spend more time with his family" - but from what we hear, he just overplayed his hand.
Fernandez had indeed offered to resign a couple of months back - after taking heat over the bus system's budget and his purchase of some very expensive Belgian coaches - but he hardly expected the board to take him up on the offer.
In fact, according to one loyalist, it was more an opening salvo to renegotiate his contract.
Instead, the board called his bluff - and now it's "so long."
Don't feel too bad for Fernandez, however.
When he leaves in December, he'll get a severance package that includes a full year's wages at $276,000, health benefits, and a year or two extra to pay off a $500,000 home loan he got a few years back in lieu of a raise.
* * * * *
How Did AC Transit Get into Its Fiscal Mess?
By Joyce Roy
Monday May 24, 2010
Berkeley Daily PlanetEvery transit agency in the Bay Area, and beyond, is hurting financially, but AC Transit has more financial resources than many, so if there had been good stewardship of their funds, they may have had to cut some service, but not to the bone. At a recent Financial and Audit Committee meeting they recognized it was to the bone and said after the presently slated cuts, there would be no more in the foreseeable future.
One of those special sources for operating funds is the Measure B sales tax; almost 18% of Measure B funds are allocated for AC Transit’s operation. Of course, the present economy means a drop in sales tax. But another source, the parcel tax is more stable and brings in about $28 million annually. The board considered placing another parcel tax on the November ballot but decided against it.
Furthermore, MTC, according to its just released report, had allocated $111,206,413 to AC Transit for fiscal year 2008-09, while allocating only $96,757,473 to Muni which has 3 times the ridership.
So all the blame for AC Transit’s fragile financial condition cannot be laid on the state and federal governments. The board sat in the back seat and allowed the General Manager, Rick Fernandez, drive them into a ditch. He convinced them to engage in a costly “special partnership” with a Belgium bus manufacturer in spite of loud and clear complaints from riders and drivers. He did this by applying all the skills of a vacuum cleaner salesman—emphatically say it is the best vacuum cleaner in the world with little stories about the fatal flaws of other brands, and say it is a special offer but only good for today! Thus he would induce at least 4 of the 7 members to vote on faith for no-bid buses, more and larger than needed. Often, they did not even ask what they cost and they never sought an evaluation by riders, drivers or mechanics (what do they know about buses?)
In the many board meetings I’ve attended in the last three years, I never heard the General Manager consider the needs of riders or drivers. He never said anything like, “We must listen to our riders; they are our customers.” And would he ever consider sitting down and talking with riders and drivers? Unthinkable! His argument for air- conditioned buses was not for the comfort of riders and drivers but for resale value.
How were well-meaning directors without a venal bone in their bodies duped? There were so many clues; why did they avert their eyes? They were given quarterly reports on travel expenses. In total $1,226,612 was spent for travel to and from Belgium; 61 employees, mostly mechanics, made 184 trips, and between the General Manager and General Counsel, 12 trips. (I had to become adept at Excel to put these numbers together.) Some staff members were even paid to go to Bus Expos to promote Van Hool buses! Because federal capital funds are not allowed for purchase of foreign buses, the GM hired a financial wiz away from MTC for “creative fund swaps.”
In early 2008 when Bob Gammon, an investigative reporter for the Express, exposed the Van Hool shenanigans and the $500,000 secret loan to the GM, you might have thought the board would wake up. But the GM and the board’s Van Hool true believer, without being able to challenge the facts, somehow managed to dismiss it as yellow journalism.
Bad reviews by riders and drivers were countered by, “Oh, but the Van Hools are mechanically so superior to American buses.” So, it was a rude awaking when in late 2009, the board learned that the Van Hool buses cost more to maintain than older American buses. It did not take them long to fire the GM. And to decide that the next buses would be purchased after bids sent to American manufacturers.
So how was the board so easily duped? In January 2007 three new members were elected to the 7-member board. None had previously served on the board of a public agency. And they had little knowledge of transportation and probably had never ridden an AC Transit bus. So confronted by complex technical and fiscal issues, they took most of their cues from the board member who dropped the most names and acronyms and whose mantra was “the Van Hool bus is the best bus in the world.” So the GM could count on at least 4 votes for any bus purchase, his and the 3 new members and 4 votes on a seven member board is all you need. Once when one of the new members began questioning the GM, he told them “you don’t need to question the GM, he is not a crook like GMs in some agencies.” For a very long time, his advice was followed.
But no longer. The board is trying to clean up its mess and they have a new Chief Financial Officer who is attempting to make sense of it.
Transportation & social equity organizations scrutinize MTC & BART for fiscal irresponsibility but they only pay attention to AC Transit when threatened with service cuts and/or fare increases. If they had acted as watchdogs, they might have gotten the ear of the board and headed off the current mess. Otherwise, the role of watchdog falls on the shoulders of individual citizens who can simply be dismissed as cranks.
Joyce Roy
* * * *
(510) 655-7508
joyceroy @ earthlink.net
joyceroy4actransit.com/