Austinist: Bus Woes Could Be Returning for City Residents

M1EK

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:51:00 -0600

Thanks for the link at the bottom. Today, I emailed Sam Archer (community relations guy for Cap Metro) with both your story and the one on metroblogging austin, just in case he had something to say.

M1EK

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:40:51 -0600

Sorry for the double-ping; my movable type installation is trying to be clever by autopinging you guys from a link within the article, and your software isn't being clever enough to notice the duplicates.

odam

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:35:50 -0600

thanks for the thoughftul and well-researched comments and information

M1EK

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:30:52 -0600

And once again, any thread which talks at this length about Cap Metro's commuter rail plan which doesn't link to at least one of my articles makes Baby Jebus cry.

M1EK

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:29:11 -0600

1. As I just said on metroblogging Austin, Cap Metro didn't pursue the federal matching dollars because, frankly, this commuter rail plan is going to carry so few riders that the Feds would have rated it poorly, and hence, it probably wouldn't have gotten funded AND Cap Metro would have sustained a PR black eye. (Compare and contrast to the 2000 light rail plan, which was rated very highly by the Feds). 2. The union is right to reject any two-tier payscale, as that is an absolute union-killer. Whether or not you think the union is good, they'd be stupid to essentially sign on to their own demise.

Declan McManus

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:28:00 -0600

The union needs to hold its ground on the tiered salary levels and benefits for new vs existing hires. This is only a corporate maneuver to break the union now in negotiations and further splinter it in the years to come when the new hires realize the outgoing oldtimers threw them, their lives, their families, their careers, and their futures literally under the bus. Labor must unite and be strong against this corporatism and conservatism for the sake of all of us. It won't stop with bus drivers, trust me.

omit

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:26:51 -0600

Here's the article about the matching funds: "The agency, looking at a long roll of federal red tape for transit grants, decided not to pursue $30 million in federal funds for the $90 million-plus rail project. And with rail supporters already talking about other, much more expensive projects, the agency's heretofore bountiful 1 percent sales tax suddenly looks insufficient." Contrast it with this answer from FAQ that Cap Metro used to sell light rail: "Capital Metro would use existing local funds and Federal matching funds, which are expected to provide as much as 50 percent of the total cost of the project." So maybe Cap Metro decided to cut into driver salaries because it bait and switched on the federal matching funds for rail?

omit

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:16:26 -0600

I think Capital Metro should make a wage concession. Perhaps drivers should concede on benefits, agreeing to a copay, and agree to reduce salary for new hires to levels for bus drivers nationwide. The commuter rail program is going to cost Cap Metro $63 million as well. According to Ben Wear, they declined matching funds from a federal program because of red tape.