Pursuant to the proposed community transit policy entitled, "Bus Efficiency Policy (BEP)," dated, 11 June 2011, please permit me, a humble but concerned citizen of the Santa Clara Valley metropolitan area to illustrate several glaring deficiencies not considered and/or addressed in the BEP. Overall the BEP is a flimsy and ill-conceived proposal that reeks of bureaucratic wish-thinking and fails to factor in the most important variable when considering any changes and/or "improvements" in transit policy, in transit operations, in bus equipment, etc., cost! I am of course referring to the hard costs associated with expanding "park and ride" lots, the adoption of the fare box with change provider, and the purchase of new hybrid, eco-friendly, buses. The major problem with the BEP is that these suggestions all come without a real price tag attached. As a consumer, as a tax-paying citizen, I want to know this information before I sanction and/or agree to the terms proposed in BEP. Therefore, it is the purpose of this editorial to address the real costs associated with these "improvements." For starters the BEP proposes expanding "park and ride" lots while lowering "park and ride" fees. This is all fine and well on paper, but let's consider the larger implications of such a measure. To expand "park and ride" lots -- "park and ride" capacity - would necessitate the purchase of more real estate. And, last time I checked, real estate doesn't come cheap in Santa Clara County. Trulia.com, a real estate website shows that the median listing price for a home...

Assuming that the purchase of new land is necessary and, as evident by the aforementioned sales statistics, is costly, how does the BEP propose this expansion should be paid for? Well, by lowering "park and ride" fees. This is, to quote Bush I, "voodoo economics." It's quite akin to lowering taxes to raise government revenue -- it's a ridiculous premise that has never worked (consider the national debt under Reagan or Bush II). In order to purchase land to expand park and ride capacity, the BEP should call for a raise in bus fares, not a reduction in fees. This is simple economics, but then again, what can one expect from well-heeled, near-sighted bureaucrats.
If that isn't enough of an impetus to question the "solutions" depicted in the proposed BEP, one should consider the suggestion for implementing the fare box with change provider. This is another lunkheaded suggestion. Why? Again, this is entirely a matter of cost. What are the costs associated with installing fare boxes with change providers in every bus in the VTA system? Furthermore, what arrangements are being made to fund the installation of these new fare boxes? To consider the relative costs involved one should look at Muni, who didn't purchase new fare boxes, but just updated their old fare boxes (a cheaper alternative), "Muni is investing $19 million to repair all 1,250 fare boxes in its fleet with the hope that the rehab project will increase payment reliability…