The stimulus funds were allocated for specific "ready to go" projects. If the money wasn't spent on that project, it's supposed to be returned to the Feds.

In other words, BART should lose those funds to be fair for every other local transit agency that didn't get any stimulus funds for projects. Those funds should then be allocated to the next projects on the DOT's list.

^I assume he's talking about the $300M+ funds from this project that were not stimulus funds, but were funds raided from other local sources to try and snag the stimulus funds. My hope is that funds go back to where they were (mostly capital budgets of AC Transit, Caltrain, and VTA), and don't just land in the operating budgets of some of the local agencies. The stimulus funding only accounted for $70M of the $500M total.

This does not bode well for the looming Muni doomsday cuts...

----
Muni operators reject concessions

Rachel Gordon, Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 16, 2010

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0fm6750xY

Muni operators resoundingly rejected on Tuesday a package of negotiated labor concessions intended to save nearly $15 million in operating expenses over two years - money intended to stop a proposed increase in discounted passes for seniors, youth and the disabled and to blunt service cuts, according to the agency's top official.

"I'm very disappointed with the outcome of the union membership's vote regarding the labor negotiations," said Nathaniel Ford, executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency. "We are trying to avert fare increases and further cuts that will affect our riders."

Union President Irwin Lum had signed off on the deal after several days of closed-door negotiations with Mayor Gavin Newsom, Muni management and the union's executive committee.

After the ratification vote, Lum said a majority of his members believed that benefits to riders - especially seniors, the disabled and youths - were not guaranteed and would be short term.

He also said operators wanted protections against layoffs, which were not part of the proposed deal.

"Our members have made it clear from the vote itself that these are concerns and issues that are bottom line for us before anything can be ratified in the future," Lum said.

Ford provided the tally to The Chronicle: 575 in favor and 857 against. The union represents about 2,000 operators.

Ford said he has a meeting scheduled with Lum today and will see what, if any, additional steps can be taken to try to salvage the plan.

Muni's governing board is scheduled to vote Feb. 26 on a budget-balancing plan to close a projected $16.9 million deficit for the current fiscal year. Later, directors must address a projected $53 million deficit for the budget cycle that begins July 1.

Agency officials had wanted to use the proposed labor concessions to undo this year's plans to double the cost of the discounted passes to $30 and to reduce the proposed 10 percent systemwide service cuts to 8 percent.

The biggest cost saver under the proposal would have required operators to make a one-time contribution to their pension fund that would save $8.9 million.

Another component called for a change in overtime rules that would have prohibited drivers from earning higher overtime pay until they first log 40 regular hours on their weekly timecard.

As it now stands, Muni operators still will receive an automatic raise next year totaling $8 million.

Their salary is set by a formula outlined in the City Charter that guarantees them the second-highest salaries among transit operators in the nation.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he will start collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to undo the minimum salary mandate and force Muni operators to negotiate their pay through collective bargaining.

"Now we're going to go out there and hit the streets," Elsbernd said. "City Hall has proven it's not up to the challenge, but I guarantee you it is something that the public wants us to do."

Go Sean!

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...0S85.DTL&tsp=1

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...22/story6.html

It may not be the most expensive option if you take future property tax revenue into account. I favor the tunneling option, but the municipalities should pick up at least part of the extra cost. Berkeley picked up the entire cost of burying BART.

You favor it for the entire peninsula?

Unless we're talking about building a bunch of new construction on top of the tunnels or around the current ROW which would not be built without a tunnel, I can't imagine future property tax revenues to rise by much, if at all, especially since land all around the ROW is already built up and owned (and thus has property tax valuations set in stone).

In fact, with the way that prop 13 works, if not tunneling causes a bunch of people close to the tracks to sell (and thus brings the valuations of their properties into the present day), even if those properties are worth less than they are right now, the turnover would still probably bring in a lot more property tax revenue.

Now, if we're talking about massive new dense development near the tracks or on top of the tracks, then I can see your point, but I'd be curious A. how possible that is (from an engineering standpoint, cost standpoint, and NIMBY standpoint) and B. how much development would happen without the tunnel option.

This is the same discussion as before. SF seems to be oblivious to SJ and the Peninsula being angry about HSR. The choices are mitigate (tunnel), stop in SJ or go East Bay. Disregarding the interests of the 85 percent of the Bay Area that do not live in SF is not a politically wise move if you really want to see HSR in California and improved transit around the Bay.

Hopefully the HSR people show more political acumen.

???

What is your basis for those "choices?"

Mitigate = what's being discussed now, and MORE cities on the peninsula don't seem to care one way or the other compared to the few that do care. You seem to be thinking that because Menlo Park, Atherton, and Palo Alto are throwing a slight temper tantrum that everyone is - but that simply isn't the case. Redwood City, San Mateo, Millbrae, etc, haven't said one negative word. The cities that are fine with things so far make up more than 80% of the population of the peninsula.

Stop in SJ = impossible without new proposition

East Bay = impossible without new proposition, and not being discussed by anyone, including the press

You're acting as if there is some kind of momentum building for stopping HSR without it entering SF - where are you getting this from? Do you seriously think a new (statewide) proposition passes for stopping the train in SJ? How would that help the 85% of the Bay Area that doesn't live in SF? Wouldn't that simply hurt the 80% of the Bay Area that lives north of SJ? "Disregarding the interests of 85% of the Bay Area that doesn't live in SF" got prop 1A more than 60% of the Bay Area-wide vote. Are you assuming that because Palo Alto wants a tunnel that now Concord is against it? Oakland has swapped sides because Atherton doesn't want the train at all? Are there folks somewhere collecting signatures for a new proposition that we haven't heard about?

I'm thoroughly confused at your logic on this one.

you could be right; let's watch the logic play out.

And then there's the >100% of the Bay Area population that lives in the Central Valley and SoCal and wants to travel to SF on HSR, not to the East Bay and in most cases (admittedly not all) not to SJ.

This HSR system works several ways--taking Bay Area residents to LA and SD, and taking SoCal residents to SF, SJ and Sac; and taking Central Valley residents to all. I wonder how many of the people in LA, SD and the Valley would think it worth the money if it didn't go to SF.

Just curious. This probably sounds like a ridiculous idea but I wonder if it ever came up, but what if they built a train at grade, and then put a sort of structure over the length of the track to mitigate for noise. Pile up some soil near it and do a little landscaping and it could be nice. Sure sight lines would be affected but it is less impact than aerials and its cheaper than tunnels or aerials, or am I missing the core complaint? Does it have to do with land use? If yes then I guess tunneling is it. I thought they were just going to beef up the Caltrain ROW?

Who knows what it has to do with. Mostly it has to do with the fact that these are over-privileged people use to getting their way and that means not allowing anything to happen they haven't approved in advance, each and every one of them.

The original plan was to electrify and 4-track the CalTrain ROW as well as eliminate all grade crossings and probably fence off the ROW as much as possible since jumping in front of CalTrain seems to be becoming the preferred route of suicide for Peninsula teens and others.

Whether or not "tunneling is it" depends on the courts. Palo Alto et. al are asserting their positions and we'll see how far they get. The problem is that even if it seems they will ultimately lose, they can hold things up long enough to cause major trouble and they know it. But the courts could take that into consideration and throw their suits out quickly. We'll have to see.

Just to clarify - the Caltrain ROW is already entirely fenced - except - for the grade crossings.

I haven't seen them file a case that has to do with tunneling yet, and I can't really imagine what that would be - the judge last summer that heard their case (to halt all work and invalidate the EIR) dismissed all of their "tunnel or nothing" arguments, and Atherton and Menlo Park lost on all of their complaints. The only "winning" complaint was that CHSRA had to confirm the route through San Jose and send it back through the public input process.

The other lawsuit, where a guy from Menlo Park was trying to assert UP's rights to using the corridor, hasn't been heard yet, but I haven't seen/heard anyone credible give it any chance of even making it past the initial hearing.

It's certainly possible that some of the cities could sue again, but as soon as the EIR is certified on the full SF-Valley segment and it holds up to another lawsuit (the only things they'll likely be able to sue on are the SJ segments, since the other parts already held up to judicial scrutiny), they will have run out of lawsuits to file.

I'm wondering if it would be cheaper to run an at-grade line through the East Bay combined with a new Transbay Tunnel to reach SF, rather than having to tunnel the entire Peninsula stretch. Plus, it would add more capacity across the bay for commuter service.

In a word, no.

There is no available ROW in the East Bay, so you're talking billions and billions in eminent domain. A Transbay Tunnel would be $10 billion, at least, probably more.

The core complaint is "I don't want anything to change." At one of the meetings, one speaker in the crowd actually came out and said, "I've only got 15-20 years left. I don't want to deal with construction in my city for 20% of my remaining life."

The ROW is wide enough for four tracks with almost no eminent domain needed (something like 98% of the route would require NONE). If you built earthen barriers on either side, eminent domain would be needed, as it would probably double the width of the ROW - keep in mind for most of the route Caltrain runs right next to 6-8 lane El Camino Real, and often another busy, wide road on the other side, so you'd be talking about rebuilding roads too.

No new land would be needed if sound barriers were built instead of earthen barriers.
A new build sound barrier being built on a railroad corridor
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._8303723_n.jpg

Not to mention the time and cost of running a campaign to get a new voter approved route. Under prop 1A, it would be illegal to change the route that drastically without a new voter approved proposition, wouldn't it?