Comments on: Recent reports on AC Transit are mistaken

By: dto510

dto510 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:17:47 +0000

Changing lines while maintaining service hours and increasing ridership is not slashing bus service. Certainly, some people’s service has been cut, but other people’s service has increased, and overall service is steady and ridership is up. AC Transit is a huge agency – with two million potential riders, there are always going to be changes to individual lines. More lines and more stops means more costs without more ridership, and the number of stops or lines is not a measure of service. You can disagree with the agency’s choices about specific lines, routes, schedules, etc., but there’s no moral failure in AC Transit’s pretty decent service record in recent years.

Yes, AC Transit service suffered a 6% cut in 2003. And basically no decrease since then. And it’s true that the MTC’s funding decisions were mostly responsible. While I’m also happy that AC Transit has the opportunity to hire new leadership, I really don’t see how you conclude that Rick Fernandez is a criminal.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:40:16 +0000

your argument is fraudulent — you don’t care about people, you care about ‘vehicle revenue hours’. a service cut is anytime service is cut — and people suffer from these cuts, you can be sure, regardless of whether these cuts help make a statistic on a page more beautiful to you. read through AC Transit’s news releases over the past few years and you’ll see multiple service cuts.

lines, stops, neighborhoods, quality of service, frequency of service – you name it — there are myriad ways to cut service, and it seems AC Transit has utilized them all over the past few years, but you can’t be bothered by stubborn little things like facts – regardless of who comes to rely on AC Transit bus service. they’re just people after all, right?

once you start a service, and you allow people to become dependent on that service, you cease to be in a position to have rights, and you gain responsibilities. under the leadership of Rick Fernandez, AC Transit has repeatedly slashed service, while raising fares. he belongs in jail. AC Transit has continually abdicated its responsibilities in recent years. the entire board should resign, and so should you – for defending Fernandez and AC Transit, and for attempting to mislead us.

In her ruling, issued Friday, Laporte said the MTC’s funding decisions were one reason AC Transit had suffered more service cuts between 2003 and 2007 than any other Bay Area system.

By: dto510

dto510 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:49:20 +0000

Here’s another way to look at it. If service were measured by the number of lines, rather than the amount of service, would AC Transit be doubling their College Ave service if they split the 51 line in two?

By: dto510

dto510 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:41:32 +0000

What is so hard to understand? AC Transit cut overall service only once, in 2003 following the dot-bomb. The number of lines is not a measurement of service, vehicle revenue hours are. They haven’t gone down even half a percent since then. And ridership is up, so more people are being served. Mr. Gammon’s statement that AC Transit “repeatedly slashed service… in recent years” is wrong.

My source is the MTC report, from Markko above. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/statsum/StatSummary08.pdf

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:26:28 +0000

The above quote [contains] numbers that, while true, do not support the conclusion that AC Transit “repeatedly slashed service.”

So, from the 5 to 6-year period of 2002 to 2007, AC Transit cut service multiple times, and with this you agree, but this still does not support the conclusion that AC Transit ‘slashed service repeatedly’?

Give it up, man – this is embarrassing. Just admit you were wrong, you lied, whatever. This ain’t the definition of ‘is’.

By: dto510

dto510 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:51:56 +0000

The above quote (from a different article than the one I am discussing) are numbers that, while true, do not support the conclusion that AC Transit “repeatedly slashed service.”

Yes, AC Transit cut and consolidated many lines. The number of lines is not the same as the amount of service. AC Transit’s revenue hours decreased six percent from 2003 to 2005, and haven’t fallen even a half percent since. A six percent decrease in service since the dot-com boom isn’t that bad, it doesn’t amount to “slashing service,” and the decrease all happened at once, so it was not “repeatedly” cut. Ridership, again, has increased substantially in the last few years.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:47:51 +0000

‘substantially cut service’? man, this entire post is just straight dishonest.

i understand that BRT and Van Hools get people worked up, but do you actually have readers who put up with this straw man nonsense?

unreal.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:09:17 +0000

ok, on whether or not just six years ago should be considered ‘in recent years’ or not, let’s drop that for now. we’ll get to the airmen in just a minute, sir.

just to clarify, you are disagreeing with this assertion?

But that was not enough, so the agency slashed service across the board. From 2002 to 2007, it cut its total number of bus lines from 157 to 93, thus reducing the number of neighborhoods it serves. During the same period, it also downsized its fleet from 771 buses to 632, retiring hundreds of older buses as the new Van Hools came on line.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:48:08 +0000

ok, i found the link on that other blog. that’s a good start – you know, linking to sources and stuff.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:45:46 +0000

where did this quote come from? please provide a link:

“AC Transit has repeatedly slashed service and raised fares in recent years, while requiring loans from other agencies to stay solvent and growing increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds to keep its buses running.”