Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community
From today's Daily Journal report
Caltrain will cut four weekday trains, eliminate station agents and increase zone fares by 25 cents, if the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board approves the changes at a meeting this morning.
To bridge a $2.3 million deficit, the board will also likely increase the price for employer subsidized Go Passes. The base fare, however, will not increase.
And if Caltrain thinks HSR will solve their problems, they are massively confused.
Won’t the management of Caltrain ever figure out that offering better service at sensible pricing will attract greater ridership?
Commuters got the message that Caltrain doesn’t feel the need to provide great service and they’re finding alternative means of getting hither and yon.
And the Broadway station remains closed during the week…and the restaurant space at the Broadway station remains unoccupied.
Sheer genius.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
The excerpt below from the Merc., suggests that despite financial difficulties, Caltrain staff salaries seem out of line compared to both the private sector and the public sector.
The employees listed on the Caltrain payroll in the fiscal year that ended in June earned a total average salary of $77,300, roughly half of it coming for work related to the railroad. Three years ago, Caltrain employees earned an average total of $59,900. About two-fifths of the employees have changed over the years.
There are also a couple of dozen employees, such as CEO Mike Scanlon, who do not show up on the Caltrain ledger because their duties aren’t easily categorized.
Still, numbers for overall pay show that Scanlon’s total compensation jumped from $324,836 to $372,408 in three years, including nearly $50,000 a year for a housing allowance and payouts for unused time off. It’s unclear what portion of his pay was funded by Caltrain.
The highest-paid staffer on the Caltrain payroll is Bob Doty, who heads the agency’s collaboration with the California High-Speed Rail Authority. He saw the Caltrain portion of his paycheck increase from $136,781 to $154,585.
More than twice as many Caltrain officials now earn six-figure salaries: 58 this year, up from 26 in 2007. In addition, 27 people now earn more than $80,000 just from the Caltrain portion of their paycheck, up from 18.
If you think Caltrain is bad for overpaid workers and financial mis-management, wait till HSR.
That will set a new bar for pigs at the trough.
Russ, thanks for presenting those numbers. I have some faith that if the tax paying citizens saw the actual salaries and benefits that we are paying to these civil servants we would be much more inclined to find a way to stop it.
caltrain’s time has come to an end, this system does not have the value it did for peninsula residents. too costly and too much of a burden. bart may be the only answer or at least something like. maybe nothing at all.
I think you are right Mike. I would hate to see the trains go. Such fond memories of all the trains that used to come thru but alas I think it must go as well. Bart would be a good idea but the amount of fighting that would insue would be unbearable and I think they would give up. If it was a different time may be able to get it through but with the amount of Lawyers out there I’m afraid there would be suit after suit. I am so glad I don’t have to deal with it.
“Caltrain is considering the reduction of weekday trains from 86 to just 48 to run during commute hours only and the suspension of weekday service at up to seven stations including Bayshore, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Burlingame, Hayward Park, Belmont, San Antonio, Lawrence, Santa Clara and College Park.”
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=151868&title=Caltrain: Stations will close
This is definitely newsworthy for a variety of reasons not the least of which is by the time Caltrain is done closing Peninsula stations we won’t need high-cost rail since the regular train will be able to blow through San Mateo County at full speed anyway. Very sad and a helluva a way to run a railroad.
Helluva a way to run a city.
Pass up on a 101 southbound exit at Peninsula Ave and lose not one but both train stations. What kind of economic impact is this going to have on local business and city revenue?
Business drives the city and the city is driving business away.
Here’s a bit of the discussion from tonights council meeting on Caltrain
Nantell: They don’t have the money. They’re going to close these stations. We know they have no other choice.
Nagel: No but I am hoping we can get enough people to say “save the Burlingame station” that, you know, I, I mean, that’s the short term goal.
AND THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IS THE BRIGHT LIGHT WHO THINKS SHE SHOULD BE A COUNTY SUPERVISOR.
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_17323577?nclick_check=1
Despite historic financial woes, Caltrain CEO’s $400,000 paycheck is state’s highest
By Mike Rosenberg
mrosenberg@bayareanewsgroup.com
Updated: 02/07/2011 10:13:18 PM PST
Salary Data: Search salaries of workers at Bay Area agencies
Caltrain’s CEO, who has proposed shutting half the rail line’s stations and halting much of its service to survive financially, earns more than $400,000 in salary — more than any transit boss in California.
Last year, Caltrain chief Mike Scanlon took home 59 percent more than the median salary for a CEO of one of the state’s 23 largest transit operators, according to a Bay Area News Group review of salaries released by the State Controller’s Office this month.
Scanlon’s pay topped the list even though the three agencies he oversees — Caltrain, SamTrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority — are average in size when combined and are on far shakier ground financially than most other transit operators. And he’s not the only one who has seen a hefty bump in pay at Caltrain, where both administrators and train workers have enjoyed pay raises in recent years.
“Good personnel come at a high price,” said Mike Nevin, a former Caltrain and SamTrans board chairman who led the search committee that found Scanlon. “I realize it’s expensive, but I feel he’s the best.”
Scanlon’s $400,668 salary eclipsed the second-best-paid transit chief, BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger, by $47,000, even though BART has four times more employees and riders. And Scanlon made $137,000 more than the chief of the state’s largest transit agency, Los Angeles Metro, which is about 15 times bigger.
Michael Burns, general manager of the Santa
Advertisement
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, made $291,192 in 2009, and turned down a bonus because of the agency’s budget struggles, his spokeswoman said.
Scanlon declined to comment on his compensation, which totals nearly $440,000 including benefits.
Defending his pay
The 44-year industry veteran has collected plenty of supporters since taking the job in 1999. His peers recently named him chairman of the committee that oversees the American Public Transportation Association.
Board members that oversee the agencies Scanlon runs said the CEO’s pay rose with his accomplishments, such as implementing the popular Baby Bullet service last decade.
“No doubt his performance was considered outstanding, and we did not want to lose him,” said Jim Hartnett, a former Caltrain and SamTrans board chairman who helped set Scanlon’s compensation.
Board members also gave him annual bonuses to help offset the high cost of Peninsula housing and because he runs three agencies.
But even when combining the three agencies, Scanlon oversees about 800 employees and service that carries some 90,000 total bus and train riders — both about in the middle of the pack statewide.
In the Bay Area, the CEOs of five larger public transportation operators would need raises ranging from 13 percent to 42 percent to reach Scanlon’s pay.
Rough times for riders
Several riders interviewed at the San Mateo station Monday said it was disconcerting to learn of the salary data as they prepare to potentially lose their service. Some, though, thought his salary was less important than having the right person in charge.
Scanlon and his staff have proposed closing up to half the rail line’s 32 stations, raising fares and stopping service during all times except the weekday commute between San Francisco and San Jose to combat a record $30.3 million deficit. The Caltrain board is set to vote on the plans this spring, and they would take effect in July.
The proposals come as the agency’s administrator payroll has increased 14 percent in the past three years — even while it has cut service and raised fares — while Scanlon has seen his pay rise from $324,836 since the fiscal year that ended in June 2007. And national labor agreements at Amtrak, which supplies the rail line’s operating employees, have led Caltrain’s line-level worker pay to soar nearly 40 percent in three years.
SamTrans, meanwhile, has recently dropped bus routes and increased fares and is in such bad shape that Scanlon said last week it would lose half its service in three years based on its current path. That’s led Scanlon to propose slashing SamTrans’ subsidy to Caltrain this year, which in turn has sparked Caltrain’s fiscal problems.
The transportation authority, meanwhile, doles out revenues from the county’s half-cent sales tax.
Caltrain board President Sean Elsbernd pointed out that Caltrain has lower administrative costs than other transit agencies and said Scanlon is the right person to lead the agency through its fiscal woes.
“Mike is straightforward, to the point, highly intelligent and a man of integrity,” said Elsbernd, a San Francisco supervisor. “You can’t ask for much more.”
Contact Mike Rosenberg at 650-348-4324.
(Did anyone else see this one? I think it’s an interesting idea–)
John Horgan: BART-only north of Millbrae?
By John Horgan
San Mateo County Times
Updated: 02/07/2011 11:18:20 PM PST
As Caltrain authorities consider severe service reductions to address a budget crisis, little is heard about one possible money-saving solution: Put a halt to Caltrain north of Millbrae; utilize BART at that point instead.
It’s a radical, and temporary, notion and it’s certainly not a perfect answer to Caltrain’s fiscal woes, but the Millbrae intermodal station is specifically set up for transfers between the two rail lines. A massive parking structure already exists there as well.
That depot would serve as Caltrain’s northern terminus. All its stations north of Millbrae would be closed, including those in San Francisco.
BART, with stations (and large parking structures) in San Bruno, South San Francisco, Colma and Daly City, would handle the Peninsula’s entire commute load into and out of San Francisco.
The biggest stumbling blocks to such a proposal would appear to be a lack of adequate extra Caltrain trackage (sidings, spur lines, etc.) near the Millbrae station and BART’s own ridership capacity, not to mention revenue issues for Caltrain.
Asked about a BART-only option north of Millbrae, Caltrain’s executive officer for public affairs, Mark Simon, was blunt and not altogether thrilled about the question late last week. He said it hasn’t been discussed at all.
He pointed out that the two rail lines serve different customers via different stations. So forget about it.
“You’re the only one who has even
brought this up,” he said, emphasizing that he wouldn’t speculate on whether such a stopgap plan could work. It’s a nonstarter. It’s not on the table.
So much for that idea. But desperate times — the looming prospect of closing stations and drastically cutting back schedules to address a $30 million operating deficit — would seem to require desperate measures.
Even a partial BART-transfer plan at Millbrae (for, say, one-third of Caltrain’s regular commute runs) might make sense. Or not.
I’ve never measured it but it seems to take way longer to get into the city using BART than Caltrain. I think if you ride both you will notice that.
Maybe if your final destination is right near a BART station that is far from 4th and Townsend it starts to even out but it sure seems to me that it would take a heck of a lot longer on BART for the commutes I do. And that is not taking into account time spent transferring from the Caltrain trains to the BART trains, nor the time it takes to extract yourself from the deep hole in the ground in San Francisco. It probably would not attract ridership and instead lose a lot of the baby bullet riders… just my opinion.
But far more practical I suggest that we fire everyone at Caltrain and have them reapply for their jobs at half or in some cases a third their salaries. (and of course declare bankruptcy to get out of the outrageous pension plans.)
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority is failing big time allowing this ripoff of the tax payer. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority has not been doing its fiduciary duty.
Nagel: No but I am hoping we can get enough people to say “save the Burlingame station”
They plan on closing 7 of a possible 10 stations. That means saving Burlingame is still an option. It’s not the worst idea to get some people behind trying to save it, the town needs it.
Dear Mr. Foolaround,
How is it that the train engineer is responsible for the mismanagement of Cal-Train?
Couple of things:
1) Suggest checking out a column in the March issue of Trains magazine by Fred Frailey regarding HSR. (This magazine should be available at the Burlingame library.) Frailey, who’s covered transportation for some years and used to edit Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, basically says HSR in the U.S. — excepting the Northeast Corridor — is dead for two reasons, those being poor execution and lack of funds. Will post an excerpt or two later.
2) As to Mr. Scanlon’s pay: While this is a drop in the $30 million bucket, it sure doesn’t look good and bears re-examination. The people out on the line? I do not begrudge them their pay. Especially considering the Bay Area’s cost of living. Train and engine crews have to be within two hours of S.F. and S.J.; if you’re going to cut their salaries, don’t make the penny-wise-pound-foolish mistake of pricing them out of the market.
Here is an idea that I feel merits consideration and might be employed by the Planning Commission when redevelopment occurs around Millbrae, Broadway and B’game Ave. Caltrain stations, as well as new development on the Bayfront where transportation strategies must now be taken into consideration:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_17342721
Nagel has no idea how to convince Caltrain to keep our station instead of another. That is the problem. She has always thought that all you need is to fill a room. Why is ours more important. She has no idea and even if someone came up with the case the best she could do is steal the idea for her own puffery. Just look at high speed rail as someone said here.
A couple of excerpts from the Fred Frailey column on HSR I mentioned above, relevant to our fair state:
***
“The execution of this idea was botched. Even if it hadn’t been, there’s no money. Huge federal deficits led to a voter backlash in 2010.”
***
“High speed rail won’t get more than $1 billion from Congress in 2011, maybe less. Then what the feds haven’t paid for, probably won’t be paid for. California would be left to finance the unfunded $30 billion or so of its $43 billion-plus high-speed line from San Francisco to Southern California, which it obviously can’t; the state looks more and more like Greece.” (If you’ve followed world events lately, you’ll know Mr. Frailey is not paying the Golden State a compliment here.)
***
“(V)ery few high speed rail grants funded entire projects. Most paid for planning … and environmental studies, or at best the start of ambitious plans, such as in California … ”
***
Should you look up this column in the March ’11 issue of Trains at the library, I’d also recommend looking in the back-issue bin for the September ’10 issue. Therein is a good story about railroads versus NIMBYs by a retired WSJ reporter named Dan Machalaba. Ignore the use of the word NIMBY in the headline; the story is well put together and worth the time.
The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.
All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026
Leave a Reply