You are here: Main Page > Regional News > Special Report: Transit Medicine

TRANSIT MEDICINE: A Modest Proposal for Increasing Ridership and Revenue To Resolve VTA's Financial Woes

Gladwyn D'Souza of Walk San Jose originally presented our proposal to increase VTA bus and light rail ridership and increase transit revenue to the VTA Board and County Supervisors at a special VTA Workshop the morning of April 18, 2002. Our plan - revised slightly to reflect VTA's ongoing fiscal crisis and proposed solutions - is presented below. This revision was presented again to the VTA's ad-hoc Financial Stability Committee on February 5, 2003.

Note that links outside vtaridersunion.org will open up a separate browser window.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Defining The Problem
Fare Box and Revenue Collection
Transit Operations
Marketing
Capital Projects
Administration and Policy
Conclusion

Introduction

About the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union

The Santa Clara VTA Riders Union (SCVTARU) was founded in October 2000 to address to elected officials in Santa Clara County the need to provide frequent, cost-effective mass transportation in the county, as well as the Bay Area region. SCVTARU is also open to working with transit staff and elected officials to achieve this goal. SCVTARU is a grassroots-based organization that shares no affiliation with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) whatsoever. Information on our group can be found online at www.vtaridersunion.org.

Purpose Of This Report

The purpose of this report is to provide short-term and long-term solutions to VTA's fiscal crisis, and thus gain financial stability. Many of these solutions have been implemented in the transit agencies of larger cities in the United States to sustain financial stability and maintain quality transit services – even during lean economic times.

To assist in the creation of this report, the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union obtained input via the following means:

• Input from our members and supporters thru our mailing list and online email discussion list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vtaridersunion/)
• Informal interviews with VTA operators and passengers
• An email address, vta-waste@vtaridersunion.org, where VTA employees and the general public anonymously submitted information on waste, fraud, and/or mismanagement observed within the VTA's daily operations.

As a result of the input we received, this report provides a front-line perspective as to the VTA's fiscal troubles, and ways to resolve the issues and attain financial stability without further service reductions and more fare increases. SCVTARU feels that the best solutions for saving money come from those who utilize the transit system daily (passengers), and those who help keep it running daily (operators, mechanics, and their supervisors). Hence, a common sense approach was taken in terms of how information from this report was gathered, and how the information in this report will be presented.

This report is divided into six (6) sections, to enable easier reading of our report. Each section of our report presents short-term and long-term solutions in a clear manner.

Defining The Problem

The Budget Deficit and Its Results

Currently, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is facing a $6 billion deficit over the next twenty years. Since the current economic recession started in the fall of 2000, VTA transit services has been reduced by nearly 20%. On February 6, 2003, the VTA's Board of Directors approved a 9% service reduction effective April 14. As of this writing, the current deficit is $70 million. According to Scott Buhrer, the Chief Financial Officer of VTA, the system will technically become bankrupt on June 30, 2003.

A Truly Taxing Transit System

Santa Clara County's transit system has historically depended on sales tax revenue for its basic funding. Since voters passed a permanent half-cent sales tax to provide funding for the county's transit system in 1975, voters have approved sales tax measures in 1984, 1992, 1996, and 2000 for the purpose of improving the county's transit and roads infrastructure. (Note: the 1992 vote was voided by the California State Supreme Court for failing to meet the 2/3 majority needed for special taxes.) According to the VTA's 2003 Fiscal Year budget, 80% of VTA's operating revenue comes from a combination of the 1975 local half-cent tax and a quarter-cent tax collected by the State of California.

However, local sales tax measures for transportation approved by voters since 1975 emphasized capital (construction) projects. These tax measures failed to adequately account for funding to run and maintain the projects (i.e. Operations) during their full lifetime. A prime example of this is 2000 Measure A. The ballot measure's text never mentioned where additional funding to operate any of the listed projects (the San Jose BART extension, light rail into East San Jose, zero-emission buses) would come from. The $1.1 billion in operating funds from 2000 Measure A would only address 17% of the projected $6 billion shortfall over the next twenty years.

The 2000-2003 Recession and Its Contribution To the Problem

The economic recession that began in the fall of 2000 has created a drastic reduction in sales tax revenue. The VTA's 2003 Fiscal Year Budget stated how sales tax revenue during one quarter decreased by 25%. Because of the drastic decrease in sales tax revenue that the county's transit system needs to keep running, the VTA raised fares by 15% and reduced service by 5% on June 8, 2002. Seven months later, VTA staff has proposed to reduce bus and light rail service again, to avoid total bankruptcy by June 30, 2003. Currently, the VTA is facing a $6 billion transit operations shortfall over the next 20 years, as it tries to deliver to voters projects such as the San Jose BART extension and light rail expansion in East San Jose.

The Situation Gets Worse

The ideas proposed by VTA Staff in their Report on Obtaining Sustainable Financial Stability, combined with the recommendations in the Business Review Team report, make the situation worse. Proposals such as fare increases 10% every other year increase obstacles to mass transit for off-peak riders and discriminates against low-income riders in the form of higher fares. Proposals such as reducing paratransit service rob the disabled community of their independence and dignity. SCVTARU has not heard of one example from a transit agency in North America where fare increases and reduced service have lead to increased ridership and increased revenue.

Worse, with the passage of Measure B in November 2002, there will be at least $2 billion in state and federal discretionary funding that will be “locked in” to highway projects until the year 2036. This will result in mass transit continuing to depend on unstable sales tax revenue for funding, while highway expansion will receive stable, diverse funding.

Only Solutions

New revenue streams for transit operations must be identified immediately in order to maintain mass transit service in Santa Clara County as a viable alternative to driving. These revenue streams must help even the playing field between funding for transit projects and funding for highway expansion. This report will identify those additional streams the VTA will need to attain financial stability, and enable it to operate the transit projects it has promised voters without harming them with higher prices and/or reduced service.

Fare Box and Revenue Collection

Short Term Solutions

• Use auxiliary fare boxes on buses when a fare box malfunctions. For the VTA's entire 558 bus fleet, have buckets with a slot to insert coins or bills for fare collection on standby with road supervisors. A two-gallon bucket with a hole for inserting coins or bills can serve as an ideal auxiliary fare box that can be placed on stand by with a road supervisor when an operator reports a broken fare box en route. The auxiliary fare box can be stored next to the driver as needed and collected by a VTA road supervisor at the route's terminal. A form that can be developed in a spreadsheet program can be used as a stat sheet to count various transit passes. The auxiliary fare box method was used on Pittsburgh when in the 1980's their fare boxes developed mechanical problems, preventing them from collecting fare revenue. VTA should investigate how much revenue is curently being lost due to broken fare boxes on buses.



• Enforce light rail fare policy more aggressively and more consistently. Currently, VTA's “honor system” fare policy for its light rail system leaves too much room for abuse. There are currently five (5) fare inspectors for the entire 28.2 mile light rail system, which runs from South San Jose, north to Milpitas, and then west to Mountain View. SCVTARU has observed these fare inspectors operate only in downtown San Jose on weekdays only, from the Children's Discovery Museum station to St. James Place. Passenger observations amongst frequent light rail riders indicate that fare inspection encounters vary wildly from once a year to twice a week.
  
  To assist in fare enforcement, as well as the security of the entire light rail system, the VTA must utilize the County Sheriff, as well as local police officers from San Jose, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View. These are the cities where light rail runs thru, so it is common sense that these cities provide the security and fare enforcement of the light rail system. San Francisco's MUNI is utilizing a similar practice to stop fare abuse on its buses and streetcars.



• Adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy on courtesy rides. SCVTARU members witnessed some VTA bus operators give friends or relatives free or illegally-discounted ride on buses – particularly on line 22. Such “courtesy” rides are unfair to those who had to pay the full $1.40 fare to ride a bus and ultimately cheat VTA of much-needed revenue. Despite reports made to VTA regarding these courtesy rides, nothing to our knowledge has been done to fully resolve the issue.
  
  VTA needs to investigate how much revenue is being lost from these “discounts” and enforce a zero-tolerance policy against this practice. Violation of this policy by VTA transit operators must result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Passengers who attempt coerce the operator into granting a courtesy ride or illegal discount must be subject to fines and/or arrest per applicable county and state laws. VTA must encourage the public to report incidents of “courtesy” rides to its customer service department, and must perform all due diligence required to cease this fraudulent practice amongst some transit operators.

Long-Term Solutions

• Re-enable light rail ticket vending machines to give out change upon payment of fare. In addition to one-way, one-use light rail tickets, the VTA light rail ticket vending machines give out single-ride tokens and also day pass tokens upon payment of proper fare. Day pass tokens, implemented after the June 2002 fare hikes, render the machine's ability to make change useless. VTA uses the same brand of ticket vending machines (ProVend International) used at Caltrain, which gives out change in nickels, dimes, quarters, and even dollar coins.
  
  SCVTARU found that a total of $7 million has been wasted on these new machines and for minting and maintaining the new day pass tokens, as a result of this new practice. The current practice discourages patrons who do not have the correct change to skip the fare and board anyway, or skip the system altogether and drive to their destination. This practice results in creating a subtle barrier to transit for potential riders, and serves as a barrier for higher farebox revenue for VTA.
  
  
• Consider lowering fares on weekends. Rolling back the base one-way and day pass fares to May 2002 values (i.e. $1.25 adult base fare, $3.00 for an adult day pass) can be done as a three-month trial in an attempt to increase ridership and increase revenue. VTA should investigate this idea with due diligence.

Transit Operations

Short Term Solutions

• Streamline bus routing where needed – especially near downtown areas. SCVTARU found that several bus lines in Santa Clara County take longer than expected because they do not run in a straight pattern in some areas. Examples of this are line 26 being routed around downtown Campbell instead of through its shopping district on Campbell Avenue.
  
  Another example of the need for streamlined bus routing is how VTA buses running in Gilroy must run along Eigleberry Street – a bumpy side street one block west of Monterey Highway and the Downtown shopping district. Depending on traffic, at least two minutes are lost due to the rerouting. In addition, local merchants lose potential customers and thus lose precious local revenue because buses are routed around the downtown area. Worse, twisted routing and the slow running time it creates turns transit riders into automobile drivers. VTA needs to look at this lose-lose situation and streamline bus routes in areas to create a win-win situation.
  
  
• Strictly enforce bus idling and starting rules. SCVTARU members noticed that some buses run idle for up to 15 minutes before the engine is restarted and the bus pulls away. When a bus is running idle for that long, fuel is unnecessarily wasted, and pollution is being sent into the air. Fuel is being consumed at zero (0) miles per gallon when a bus engine is idle for more than 30 seconds. The situation worsens when a bus engine is restarted after such a long idling period. The restart clears the bus exhaust of excess soot gathered while the bus was running, sending even more pollution into the air.
  
  One such incident occurred on the evening of December 20, 2002 was where an out-of-service bus (9203) pulled into First and Santa Clara in downtown San Jose. The bus operator pulled into the stop and left the engine running idle for 15 minutes. The operator of the bus then restarted the engine and pulled away. In cities such as Palo Alto, where bus engine idling is restricted to three (3) minutes, the operator would have been cited by the police for causing excessive pollution and possibly be cited for disturbing the peace.
  
  VTA must adopt and enforce an internal policy barring idling of bus engines for no more than three (3) minutes. VTA should also encourage the public to report incidents of excessively idling bus engines to its customer service number, and perform all due diligence required to resolve this issue. Simultaneously, VTA should also investigate use of electronic ignition timers that automatically shut off the engine of a bus that idles longer than three (3) minutes. This would ultimately save thousands of dollars in fuel per year, as well as prevent unnecessary pollution of our air thru the release of carbon monoxide (CO).
  
  
• Improve bus connections with Caltrain. Given the county's spread-out land use policies, use of Caltrain as opposed to VTA buses over long distances can save passengers up to an hour in bus travel. Currently, VTA runs peak period express bus service from the southern and eastern portions of San Jose to Palo Alto via the 101, 102, 501, and 503 respectively. Instead of the current end point of Page Mill Rd. and El Camino Real in Palo Alto, move the end point to the California Avenue Caltrain station. VTA should make sure the buses synchronize with arriving and departing Caltrain service to maximize intermodal connection opportunities, and thus, increase ridership.

Long Term Solutions

• Run buses instead of light rail service during certain hours. In April 2002, County Supervisor Blanca Alvarado recommended using buses instead of light rail at certain times of the day, to save money. According to the VTA's Third Quarter Performance Report of 2001, it costs $200 per hour to operate a light rail train, and $150 per hour to operate a bus.
  
  One such example where this could be utilized is on the Tasman West light rail line between the I-880/Milpitas station in Milpitas and downtown Mountain View on weekends. SCVTARU observed that an average of 10 passengers per trip utilized the line on weekends. On weekend nights, zero (0) passengers utilized the light rail system between Mountain View and Milpitas. Given the cost per hour to run light rail, and given the VTA's current one-way adult fare structure, an average of over $9 per “paying” passenger was being wasted during the 35 minutes the trip. (Given the open abuse seen in VTA's light rail fare policy, the term “paying passenger is used loosely.)
  
  To rectify this wasteful situation, VTA should resurrect line 20 between downtown Mountain View, the Great Mall, and Weller/Main in Milpitas. Resurrecting the former line 20 would yield several advantages:
  
  
  • Less operating cost per hour, as stated above
  • The ability to consistently collect the proper fare – a feature the VTA's light rail system totally lacks. The bus operator must collect the proper cash fare or other fare media (i.e. day pass or monthly pass) before boarding is permitted.
  • Line 20, from SCVTARU research, ran 5 to 10 minutes faster than the Tasman West light rail line that replaced it. The time gained from using the bus can actually increase ridership on the corridor, provided VTA adequately promote the replacement service as an alternative to driving.
  
  
• Consider contracting out shuttle van service on historically-low ridership bus routes. Bus lines, such as the 56 between Milpitas and Sunnyvale and line 17 in Gilroy, historically have had less than 20 passengers per trip. Thus, there is no need to utilize a 50-passenger, 40 foot bus for these lines – the kind of bus that is needed on high-ridership lines such as the 23, 25, 66, and 68.
  
  For these historically low ridership lines, a 20-passenger minibus – similar to what is used on VTA's DASH free downtown shuttle – can be used for these lines. VTA should investigate contracting out historically low ridership lines to local companies that specialize in 20-passenger minibuses (New Century Transportation and Serendipity are two examples) and split the costs between themselves, any cities the services run through, and businesses that would benefit from these services.
  
  In the example above, instead of 40-foot buses that can be used to provide more frequent service on line 68 on weekends, line 17 can be contracted out to a private company. Currently, VTA runs line 17 in the city of Gilroy, between the city's Caltrain station, the Wal-Mart, the Gilroy Outlets, and St. Louise Hospital. Based on the line's total service hours and the $150 per hour it costs to run a bus in Santa Clara County, it costs $45,000 per month to run line 17.
  
  Based on the SCOOT shuttle service in the city of San Carlos, four (4) 20-passenger vans with wheelchair capabilities can be rented out for $30,000 per month. For private van service on line 17, the cost can be divided between benefactors of the shuttle service (VTA, City of Gilroy, the Gilroy Outlets, the Wal-Mart, and St. Louise Hospital). The service can be run at the same frequency and routing as the current line 17 on weekends (every half hour between 8:45am and 6:30pm) at the current VTA fare structure. To maximize ridership, have the service connect with line 68 to and from the San Jose Caltrain station. In this example, $15,000 per month can be saved by privatizing line 17 with 20-passenger wheelchair accessible vans instead of oversize, 50 passenger, 40-foot buses. If marketed properly as an alternative to driving for Gilroy shopping, more money can be saved in the form of increased ridership on this line.
  
  
• Adjust service levels where needed. Using the service level adjustments mentioned above, VTA should utilize a six-month to one year trial period to give transit ridership a chance to build up. Only after this trial period ends, service in areas that continue to be underutilized – especially underutilized rail lines – should be reduced or eliminated, while service on heavily-used lines should be increased as appropriate.
  
  One example of the need for service adjustments is service on Line 70 north of Berryessa to Milpitas. SCVTARU observed that at various times on weekdays and weekends, line 70 north of Berryessa to Milpitas runs with no passengers at all. Bus operators have noted this trend to VTA management for years, with no action taken to adjust service such that a turnback is set up at Capitol and Hostetter or the Great Mall. There, service can be quickly reversed to where it is truly needed (between Eastridge Mall and the Capitol light rail station).
  
  When adjusting service to where it is needed, VTA management should provide detailed ridership statistics on all bus and light rail lines within the county. To assist in this data gathering, VTA must have every transit plannerm scheduler, and manager ride its buses and light rail at all times. Details gathered thru this research will enable VTA to align routes and service hours with demand.

Marketing

Short-Term Solutions

• Work with employers and educational institutions on bus route and schedule changes. By working with major employers such as Cisco and with educational institutions such as San Jose State University, VTA can design schedules, routes, and transfer points that are convenient to current and potential bus riders.
  
  Employers and educational institutions must work with the VTA to make it easier and cheaper to provide access to VTA transit services for their employees. For employees, this can be done with additional free shuttle bus services from key public transit stops to major employers. One such example is by having the IBM light rail shuttle from Santa Teresa LRT station to the IBM Labs on Bailey in South San Jose (the #806) run in both directions all day, instead just in one direction only during the peak period hours. For educational institutions like Foothill College or Gavilan College, VTA monthly passes or even Eco-passes good for an entire semester can be sold at student centers.
  
  Simultaneously, VTA should encourage employers and educational institutions to cut back on free parking. SCVTARU found that free parking at the workplace is one of the primary causes of the county's high number of solo drivers. Discounts on yearly Ecopasses can be given to companies who agree to reduce the amount of free parking, and who agree to advertise VTA transit services to their employees as an alternative to driving.
  
  Employers and educational institutions should also work with the VTA to promote these transit services as an alternative to driving. Ideas for promotion include promotion of VTA transit service on internal company web sites or on the transportation web pages of educational institutions. Also, VTA can work with employers and educational institutions in promoting “transit days” where VTA staff and representatives from RIDES can list ways workers and students can get to and from their destinations faster and more conveniently on transit. The input generated from these days can be used to adjust service to workplaces and educational institutions later on. The more people know about transit and how close they may be to a service that is convenient to them, the more likely they will use it instead of their car.
  
  
• Use print, radio and cable media to promote VTA buses and light rail as an alternative to driving. As an example, SamTrans sponsors some KCBS traffic reports and uses the advertising time to promote itself as an alternative to driving in the Peninsula. New Jersey Transit has promoted itself on New York City and Philadelphia television and radio stations as “The Way To Go.” Given advertising discounts that have been given by advertisers due to the recession, VTA can work out advertising deals with AT&T Broadband to promote themselves to Santa Clara County viewers as an alternative to driving.

Long Term Solutions

• Investigate a per-event Ecopass promotion. VTA should work with San Jose's sports teams (i.e. the Sharks, SaberCats, Earthquakes, and Giants) and distribute VTA tickets, good for day of game only use, to local sports spectators on select game days. SCVTARU estimates that only five percent of the tickets will ever be used so they can be sold to the team at a steep discount. Such promotions would introduce the VTA system to people who don't use it or are unaware of it.

Capital Projects

Short Term Solutions

• Use 2000 Measure A bonds as a stopgap measure against this year's deficit. In November 2002, the VTA Board approved issuing $80 million in bonds against 2000 Measure A funding to purchase right-of-way for the San Jose BART extension. The VTA Board, by logic, should be able to bond $140 million as a stopgap measure against this year's long-term deficit of $140 million per year. If necessary, VTA should place an emergency ballot measure to ask voters to bond $140 million against 2000 Measure A funding as a stopgap measure, for this fiscal year only.
  
  
• Temporarily halt construction on all remaining capital projects. On page 53 of VTA's report Obtaining Sustainable Financial Stability, it is mentioned that "Delaying a capital program allows sources of funds to build healthy balances which when drawn down less rapidly accommodate the match between revenue and expenditure patterns."
  
  Upon reviewing the information in the report, the payments on the bonds the VTA is planning on issuing for the San Jose BART extension are half of their estimated shortfall of funds starting around 2011. The $42 million per year for operating BART is about 25% of the projected shortfall in the report. By delaying the BART extension into San Jose for a couple of years, their annual shortfall would go from $160 million dollars a year to $40 million per year. VTA should investigate how much the deficit can be lowered by delaying other capital projects such as Vasona light rail, Tasman East light rail, and the US Highway 101/State Highway 85 connector.

Long Term Solutions

• Construct more transit-only lanes in historically congested areas. In downtown San Jose alone, SCVTARU noted that at least 10 minutes can be saved along line 22 by constructing one (1) bus-only lane in both directions of Santa Clara Street, from HP Pavilion thru the downtown area to Alum Rock Avenue. VTA should investigate how much time is gained from constructing more transit-only lanes in congested areas, construct the lanes, and utilize buses to use those lanes. The time gained from buses using these lanes can make buses a faster and more attractive alternative to driving, as has been the case in New York City for many years.

Administration and Policy

Short Term Solutions

• Make “provide transit information to/from venue” as common a practice as providing wheelchair access. For large venues such as the HP Pavilion at San Jose, their web sites provide information about access via VTA and Caltrain. At the venue itself, plenty of signs indicate where parking is located; however, there are no signs indicating where shuttle bus service to light rail is located, and where the train station is for riding Caltrain/ACE/Amtrak Capitol Corridor or VTA bus home from the event.
  
  Madison Square Garden in New York City, for example, is built on top of Penn Station. Signs within the Garden indicates not only where parking and taxis are located, but also indicate where New York City's subways and bus stops are located, and where commuter rail to New Jersey and Long Island is available.
  
  VTA and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should investigate having information on accessing transit from within sports venues, convention halls, and shopping malls required as a condition of a business license or occupancy permit. This requirement will introduce VTA's light rail system to tourists, as well as promote the service as an alternative to driving for residents who did not know the service exists.
  
  
• For visiting VTA senior managers, utilize common facilities at VTA bus and light rail facilities. SCVTARU found that over $1 million has been spent this year on renovations to offices at the North, Chaboya, and Cerone divisions – renovations that now require an office solely for the use of the Director of Operations. Every visiting VTA senior manager should use currently existing desks and office supplies for their work.
  
  
• Release or reduce pay for some VTA senior management members. SCVTARU feels a Chief of Staff to the General Manager at $134,000/year is not necessary for a county-level agency. The pay for General Manager Peter Cipolla, and his successors, should be reduced in half to $103,000 per year. Also, the $9,000 per year car allowance the General Manager currently receives should be exchanged for a yearly Ecopass that requires him (and his successors) to use the VTA's bus and light rail system instead of an automobile for transportation.
  
  By eliminating several “Senior Management Analyst” positions, as well as increasing the current worker to manager ratio at VTA from 1:3 to at least 1:8, nearly $2 million can be saved. David Gunn, General Manager of Amtrak, reduced the number of managers at Amtrak from 55 down to 25, saving nearly $4 million in the process.

Long Term Solutions

• Implement a congestion management fee that is charged to developers. This fee funds transit service operating costs associated with new development in a given area.
  
  San Francisco's MUNI has been collecting such a fee since 1981. In San Francisco, their Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) has produced $10 million in revenue for MUNI's 2002 fiscal year budget. Imagine the revenue stream for VTA if such a plan were implemented in downtown San Jose or Sunnyvale's Cherry Orchard development zone. Such a fee was proposed by VTA's predecessor, the Transportation Agency (TA) in 1995 but was tabled in committee.
  
  This can be combined with a modest fee ($2,500) for development of "monster" homes, whose revenue would remit to VTA's operating budget. Discounts can be given to developers who build affordable housing and/or employment near transit hubs, and whose projects openly encourage walking and mass transit instead of driving.
  
  
• Work with the Santa Clara County Supervisors to encourage the cities to impose parking taxes in municipal-owned lots. The revenue can be split between VTA's operating and capitol budgets, and the county's general fund. VTA Staff and the County Supervisors should also consider remitting a percentage of traffic fines from the cities to VTA's operations budget. This is already done in San Francisco, whose 25% parking tax in city-owned lots generates $86 million per year according to MUNI's 2002 fiscal year baseline budget. Parking garages recently built in Sunnyvale and Campbell, which have nearly 6,000 spaces total, can easily serve as revenue generators for transit operations funding for the VTA.
  
  
• Work with the Santa Clara County Supervisors to implement a county-wide discount on auto insurance for using transit. VTA should investigate working with the County Board of Supervisors to grant county auto drivers a 10% (or $75, whichever is smaller) discount on auto insurance, upon proof of transit use by turning in 11 monthly passes out of 12 in a calendar year to their auto insurance company. Receipt of purchase of a yearly Eco-Pass subscription from a participating employer can also be used as a 10% auto insurance discount coupon. This idea has been successfully implemented in the state of Massachusetts, and is one of the reasons for their traditionally high transit ridership – particularly in the Boston area.
  
  
• Investigate how VTA capital projects and transit operations could be funded through the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. For capital projects solely within the San Jose city limits such as Downtown/East Valley light rail extension, the VTA and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors should consider having the San Jose Redevelopment Agency provide part of the capital and operations funding. San Jose's Redevelopment Agency has the highest redevelopment budget in the state, and is regarded as having one of the highest redevelopment budgets in the nation. A percentage of the operations funding can be provided by the RDA for the first 2 years after such projects open for revenue service.
  
  
• Consider replacing the Downtown San Jose Customer Service Center with kiosks. VTA's Customer Service Center on North First and Santa Clara St. in San Jose is on prime real estate. VTA should look into getting out of the lease at that location (perhaps with the help of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency) and set up kiosks at the bus and light rail stops in the area. These customer service kiosks would assist current and potential transit riders in proper use of the transit system – a purpose that is not well served (from our observations) at the current site.
  
  
• Investigate consolidation with other transit agencies. VTA should investigate consolidation of its transit services with those of SamTrans and the Santa Cruz METRO. VTA should investigate how much money can be saved via combining fleets, coordinating schedules, and streamlining operations via consolidation with other transit agencies. The Bay Area's regional transit planners and financiers, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), can assist in such a consolidation as needed.

Conclusion

To Sum It Up...

It is well past time for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to move into the 21st Century in terms of service philosophy and transit operations funding. VTA's bus and light rail operations must move out of the “9 to 5 on weekdays” era of transit service, and into the era where current and potential transit riders have 24-hour, 7 day per week schedules. To continue a 1970's-era philosophy of solely depending on sales taxes for its operations budget is to guarantee financial ruin when a deep recession, such as the current one we are experiencing, affects transit revenue.

However, if the VTA is to become and remain financially stable, cities, educational institutions, and private employers within Santa Clara County must work together with VTA and abandon 1950's-era policies of encouraging the use of an automobile over mass transit. Specifically, cities such as Sunnyvale and Campbell need to emphasize the use of mass transit thru downtown areas as opposed to encouraging more traffic gridlock thru free parking garages in their respective downtown areas. Traffic is an inherent issue within Santa Clara County. Numerous surveys taken over the last few years reflect how the county has over 1 million solo drivers on local roads per day – amongst the highest in California. Local ordinances which discourage mass transit harm the environment and reduce the quality of our lives in the long term, resulting in the county becoming everything its citizens despise about Los Angeles in terms of consistent traffic gridlock.

The Santa Clara VTA Riders Union found it surprising that a transit agency such as VTA is lax in enforcing many of its fare collection policies. We estimate that the VTA can gain at least an additional 5% in fare box recovery simply by enforcing existing fare policies in a more aggressive manner.

With our ideas implemented, VTA buses and light rail will become a more viable alternative to driving in Santa Clara County. As a result, the quality of life issues in our current infrastructure will be mitigated. In the long term, our plan will best ensure that the goal of San Jose's General Plan of doubling transit trips by 2010 will be met. It will also ensure that transit operations funding will have revenue streams that will enable it to withstand volatile economic conditions without harming transit riders with higher fares and/or reduced service.

back to vtaridersunion.org main page