You may have missed it, but recently the police forces of San Jose and other cities in Santa Clara County merged with the Sheriff’s Department to form one large and coordinated police unit. This new Metro-County Police Force will allow a level of service unequalled in local or even California history. It will be responsible to a 13-member board consisting of both elected officials and appointed citizens with a law enforcement background.
Their first acts were to increase the patrolling of Saratoga to deal with various infractions such as barking dog complaints, garbage removal, and the like. In the north county, additional resources have been channeled into the curtailing of loud leaf blowers in residential areas. Staffing will be shifted from East and South San Jose and Gilroy to accomplish this reorienting. Additionally, several homicide investigators from the Gilroy and Palo Alto departments will be shifted to the annoying proliferation of “fence height infractions” in Los Altos. It is the dawn of a new era in policing.
Of course, none of this really happened (using police resources at least). However, it is a regular occurrence in the management of transit resources in our county. Governed by the VTA Board, for too long the resources and routes in our region have been influenced by many elected officials with such stark, alarming and provincial decision making. Buses in areas where people do not use them have taken priority over areas where buses are the only means of getting from one place to another for work, school and critical appointments. It is not the way to run a railroad, or a transit district.
Thankfully, changes may be afoot. There are efforts being made to run buses more often on well-used and important routes and to stop relatively empty buses driving into areas where they are not so desperately needed. Recovering less that 15 percent of expenses at the fare box is intolerable—bad, even for government work. A recent consultant hired by the VTA Board found that the decisions were being made based on politics rather than sound policy and the needs of people. No surprise there.
It will be a pleasant and long overdue change when the VTA Board puts away their parochial ways and makes this enterprise serve the citizens who need it most. We can only hope that the leaders and the supervisor of a city like Palo Alto will do the right thing and put resources, like police, where they are needed—not where they can rescue a cat from an unusually high tree.
#1 Dan and anyone else wishing to comment on the demise of the Grand Prix:
Please hold off until tomorrow when it will be the topic of our discussion.
Thanks.
Michael Burns gets paid 1/3 of a million dollars per year. To finally get the buses on proper routing and scheduling – you guessed it, they hired a consultant. Why are these incompetent executives paid so much money?
Actually, the Grand Prix is an excellent metaphor for VTA performance: Expensive vehicles running limited routes, carrying few passengers and disrupting traffic flow for the rest of the masses.
Wasn’t it on Tom’s watch that the city of SJ insisted on having the trolleys crawl through downtown without providing any alternative “express” bypass? That decision was the most detrimental to ridership numbers than any other in the entire light rail project.
While I agree that there are far too many empty buses plying the county roadways, I find it odd that Tom would make the statement “for too long the resources and routes in our region have been influenced by many elected officials with such stark, alarming and provincial decision making” when precisely that behavior—demonstrated by the council over which Tom presided at the time—is why the trolleys do not have a downtown bypass and trains run with far fewer passengers than they could potentially be carrying as a result.
A bus route is an easy thing to change. Not so for a trolley. I’m kind of amazed that Tom would be leveling these charges when his council is responsible for the most unworkable mess in all of the VTA’s operations.
Tsk, tsk, Tom – the chicken’s come home to roost. Wasn’t it also on your watch that the decision was made not to extend light rail to the airport?
Mark T hits the nail on the head. Tom Mic has brought nightlife, which he now doesn’t want. and he was heavily involved in the transit mall.
Next he want to get rid of the Sharks!
Does the VTA Board have as large a travel budget as SCVWD Board?
I also do not understand why there is only one size bus for every route—the behemoth deisel spewer. I’m sure there are many routes that could be served by buses the size of the Downtown Dash vehicles; and perhaps even by 16 passsenger vans. Those would be easier to operate, maintain, fill; and they could run on alternative fuels, as well.
O.K. Folks lets go with some positive suggestions to improve VTA. I am certainly no expert but when I see a bus less than 1/4 full I think that something is wrong. Buses in other large cities are so crowded that some folks must stand up. Route #22 is a joke. It is no secret that the homeless buy an all day ticket and sleep all night on the all night route between palo alto and San Jose thereby avoiding sleeping in doorways and parks. It has the reputation of being the homeless hotel. Maybe it should cease the trips at midnight. Also I have never seen the 22 double full. Why were double length purchased anyway?
ANY MORE IDEAS PLEASE….
On VTA:
I had previously gave VTA credit for at least trying to improve bus service in the Valley. However, I felt that VTA and the city could have made better efforts to fill up some of those empty buses. Example: VTA axing the only bus line directly serving downtown San Jose with City College and Vallley Medical Center. Those between the areas would now have (uncoordinated) transfers between the 23 and 61/62 to get to VMC and City College. That 85 bus line to be axed should have used the smaller buses similar to what DASH uses now. I am predicting a drop in ridership between the areas as people tire of uncoordinated transfers and return to (solo) driving.
This Vallley, as I have learned over the years, has been built for and around the automobile. As you all know, you can drive most everywhere here in 15 minutes, vs. the 45-60 minutes or longer it would take on light rail. It’s another reason why transit ridership in the Valley has been historically low.
To Tom: it must be asked what convinced him and the city council at the time to not have any downtown light rail bypass, and what convinced him and the council to not seek a light rail line to the Airport. It must also be asked what has taken him over a decade to critique a VTA Board where nearly half the membership is from the San Jose City Council (Mayor Reed included).
Overdue state audit of VTA aside, one other thing to remember: Valley voters have no say on who sits on the VTA Board. You cannot elect nor recall any VTA Board member. All concerned need to join me and my group in writing the Governor and the Legislature in demanding VTA reform itself NOW.
John #10:
In addition to the 60-ft. buses VTA has for the 22 and the standard 40-foot buses for other routes, there are also 35-foot buses used mainly north of Sunnyvale and for the Airport Shuttle. There are also the 25-foot community buses used for DASH, as welll as for local service in Campbell, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy.
Napper #11:
My previous post answered some of the questions on why one sees so many empty buses. According to some transit historians that post on my group’s mailing list, articulated buses ran along El Camino Real in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s but were pulled due to mechanical problems. The articulated buses were bought a few years ago (which local officials promised since 1994) in anticipation of having rapid bus service along El Camino Real. During rush hour periods and around lunch I usually take the 22 or 522 and usually see the 522 SRO a bit more often than the 22. The 22 is also, according to the MTC, one of the busiest bus lines outside of San Francisco.
To answer your concerns about homeless on the 22: VTA addressed the issue by forcing people off the bus at both ends, and by cycling buses used on it every few hours. This took place after photos of homeless sleeping on the 22 were published over the Internet in a blog critical of VTA.
I always thought more businesses (except car dealers) need to advertise how to reach them by bus or train instead of solely by car. By advertising how to reach a business by bus, iit gives folks an alternative to get there should their car break down or their license revoked for any reason. There is little advertising on how to reach a lot of the Valley by bus or train – a subtle warning that those who don’t drive in the Valley, don’t count. Clearly wrong and an attitude that needs to be changed.
I saw the movie, The 11th Hour last night. I think we all better find ways to ride share, take public transit, or get energy efficent vehicles pretty soon, or these discussions won’t matter any longer~
Dear San Jose:
#12 Eugene Bradley reminds, that the voters have no say as to who sits on the VTA Board. The same is true for the Redevelopment Agency. Lots of power, lots of bucks, and the voters can only stand back and watch.
The demise of the Grand Prix is proof positive that there needs to be accountability (and guranteed returns) when public money is used to underwrite private ventures. What a joke…but the joke’s on us. (Does this mean that they’ll replant all of the trees that were torn out?)
Pete Campbell
Wait a minute, STOP, hold on Mark T, Eugene and friends – while I did insist that Downtown, the center of the county,w. more real people, low income people ( read transit riders) needing to come there, be serviced, to attribute no spur to the airport, no other lines by-passing downtown, and too many buses to high income areas, I think is a bit much. Hey, I made enough real mistakes to hit me on, give me a break on these imaginary ones. If we did not push DT, the line rail would probably run to Stanford and Saratoga. TMcE
Pete
You elect ALL the RDA , Redevelopment Agency members, i.e., the Mayor and Council – several Gran Prixers are up for election this June. If you think this method of running RDA is bad, the old citizen/insider group was about as efficient as the old Soviet Politburo. TMcE
Tom’s right!
Stop voting these same politicans into the same or higher offices. Do your part in the voting booth and say good bye to Mayors and Council members who ignore your wishes, and the needs and voices of the people~
Hugh was living on the east coast when the light rail line opened through downtown San Jose. He’s not sure of the reason that trains must slow to a crawl through the downtown “mall” since streetcars in Sacramento, which use the K-street mall, don’t seem to go quite so slowly. Could someone explain the history, and more importantly, is anything being looked at in order to speed things up?
No wonder people are concerned that VTA is in charge of the Bart expansion through San Jose. Monday’s night meeting at city hall for neighbors in Naglee Park and Northside was a scary senario.
Good point #10 regarding the size of buses.
#20 Wonder Woman, #13 Eugene already set the record straight on VTA bus sizes. There are, in fact, several sizes of buses including the overgrown vans known as “community bus.”
“The farebox recovery ratio of a passenger transportation system is the proportion of the amount of revenue generated through fares by its paying customers as a fraction of the cost of its total operating expenses.
Most systems aren’t self-supporting, so advertising revenue and government subsidies are usually required to cover costs. “
” The national average farebox recovery for transit systems is 32%. Rural bus systems typically have farebox recovery ratios of 15-30%
North America Fairbox recovery % / year
Amtrack 55%
Atlanta (MARTA) 32.3% 2006[4]
Bay Area (BART) 56% 2005[5]
Chicago (CTA) 42.0% 20052
Edmonton, Canada (ETS) 39.4% 2007 [7]
Cleveland (GCRTA) 21.5% 2002[6]
Detroit (DDOT) 13.9% 2002[8]
Los Angeles (LACMTA) 30.6% 2004[9]
Las Vegas Monorail 56.0% 2006[10]
Maryland (MTA) 26.3% 2002[6]
Massachusetts Bay (MBTA) 43.7% 2002[6]
Miami-Dade Transit 16.1% 2002[6]
Montreal (SMT) 57.1% 2006 [11]
New York City subway 67.3% 2002[6]
Ottawa(OC) 43.2% 2007 [12]
New York/New Jersey (PATH) 41.0% 2002[6]
Philadelphia (SEPTA) 58.6% 2002[6]
Philadelphia/New Jersey (PATCO) 61.4% 2002[6]
Staten Island Railway 15.2% 2002[6]
Toronto Transit Commission 74.5% 2005 [13]
Washington, DC (WMATA) 61.6% 2002
San Diego’s farebox recovery is about 35% (5th of 25) not 80% as previously stated
VTA ranks 23rd of top 25 Largest metro areas ( about 15%) for farebox recovery in latest (2005) numbers with only Detroit and suburban Dallas- Ft Worth lower
Increasing farebox recovery by raising fares typically lowers passenger usage and decreases farebox recovery because of less passengers per trip
Better routing, faster and more frequent service to high volume destinations increases passengers per trip reducing cost per passenger and increases farebox recovery per passenger
Dear San Jose
I’m writing today
A short essay
Hoping to convey
My displeasure and dismay
At the V-T-A
For poor transit in the south bay
They are not making hay
I probably have no sway
But let me just say
As I seek and survey
I do not wish to portray
The bleak and decay
That is the V-T-A
Improvements don’t delay
Do not back away
Buses and trolleys should be child’s play
All options we must weigh
Competence you must display
Or you will become passe
Let us all hope and pray
Okay?
Then one day
We can say
“Hooray!”
Tom, I digress from your VTA subject to voice my pleasure over the decision yesterday to cancel the Grand Prix downtown race. We think of what could have been done with the money spent by the city and what would have been spent every year of the race. It should move to Laguna Seca or somewhere that is set ujp for racing. Champ Car is at the bottom of the stack as far as public interest in vehicle racing. Now, if a full size racetrack was built at the County Fairgrounds and NASCAR was invited to participate there would be tremendous support from the public.
Is it Friday already? Get a look at your calendar John…
TOM,
Good subject today. The ridership support here is as you say, “INTOLERABLE”. 15% here, Compare that to San Diego’s ridership support which I believe is 80%. When I see empty buses I just wonder who is responsible for the scheduling. If this was a private company it would be bankrupt. Where is the public outrage?
#19 Thanks for the summary of #13, I tend not to read the longer blogs; haven’t seen any of the smaller buses. Guess #10 and I just don’t drive in the areas where smaller buses have been assigned.
… and then the bartender says to the pooch “that ain’t nothing, dja hear the one about the city and the taxpayer?”
Thanks for the 4-1-1 on smalkler vehicles, #13; but I have never seen one.
For those of you who are not aware, there is a very dangerous proposal coming before the Sunshine Task Force this Thursday at 6 p.m.
You might want to view tomorrow’s Council Meeting at 3:30 pm., and attend the Sunshine Task’s Force Meeting Thursday, or at least watch it. Here’s my letter to the Mayor and Council. I strongly urge you to write in, and voice your opinion on this, no matter what your stand on this issue is.
Honorable Mayor Reed, and Council Members,
I am writing to you as a private citizen, as a victim of a crime, and as a victim’s advocate. I attended tonight’s forum at the MLK Library. I am deeply concerned about the proposal of opening Police reports to the public and the media. As a former victim, the thought of having my name, address, phone number, and the details of what I went through, made a matter of public record is terrifying to me. As a mediator who has worked in Victim Offender Mediation, and as a person who sits on several committees and boards defending the civil rights rights of victims, I am terrified that the of kind transparency you are being asked to give members of the public, will not only keep victims from coming forward, but would allow a perpetrator the opportunity to come after their victims by gaining access to this presently confidential information.
As an advocate who works with immigrants in San Jose, I can tell you first hand that the media has represented the Police as brutal, racist, and violent so much so that, many of the victims I work with absolutely refuse to come forward and report things like rape, assault, robbery, and other felonies. My biggest fear is that opening Police reports and files to the extent I heard tonight, will further victimize innocent people, victims of crimes, and witnesses to crimes. Confidentially is a huge bargaining tool that Police Officials, government departments, and other enforcement agencies, like Code Enforcement use, to ensure the safety and well being of those coming forward. My hope is that you will take this into serious consideration before you allow this kind of action.
I would also like to ask that you do not allow a Charter change to give the IPA any more power or discretion than she already has. While she may be educated enough to over see complaints, I do not feel she is trained in enforcement, use of force, and certainly has no idea of what a Police Officer goes through when a gun is pulled on them, or they are fighting for their lives. That was very evident to me in tonight’s meeting, and during the special Council Meeting during her IPA report.
Finally, I’d like to say that I have attended every public forum held on this issue, and regarding the Police. I have yet to see anyone or group present who speaks on behalf of victims of crime in San Jose. Every forum I’ve been to has been one sided, and does not include groups who oppose these kinds of requested changes. There is something very wrong about that.
When Police enforcement representatives, or DA personnel is present they are rarely given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations made, or remarks by panelists, or the public. That happened in tonight’s forum, when District Attorney McCracken tried to respond to comments made to her by the panel sponsoring the forum. She was not given equal time, or an opportunity to refute incorrect statements, or information. If members of the public who do not support this were notified as widely as these special interest groups, that these changes are being requested, I’m pretty sure they’d call, write, and appear before you.
Please, vote no on this very dangerous, and well meaning proposal.
Respectfully,
Kathleen