Pursuant to the Proposed Community Transit Policy

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 in Santa Clara Country can be upwards of 500,000-1.5 million dollars depending on the zip code (Trulia). 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 for the cash-strapped agency" (Reisman). If it cost Muni $19 million just to repair the current fare boxes, what will it cost the VTA to purchase an entirely new fare boxes? This question remains unanswered, but one can be sure of this, when there's "hope" involved in any initiative, one can always bet that it's a tenuous proposition that will definitely lose money.

Lastly, there's the BEP is intimating that the VTA should purchase new green, eco-friendly buses and decommission the current line. This is a suggestion (admittedly less doltish than the increase "park and ride" capacity while lowering park and ride fares and the installation of new and costly fare boxes with change providers) is one that is based off an idealistic driven vantage point. It would be wonderful if all the buses were eco-friendly and hybrid buses that mitigated their carbon footprint. Yet, we live in the real world with real budgets. And there's no sensible reason to incur more costs by purchasing new hybrid buses, especially when solvency and revenue are an issue and there is a fleet of functional, gas/diesel engine buses at the ready. Plus hybrid buses are expensive, "How much do hybrid buses cost? Hybrid buses can cost up to $500,000, a significant increase over a standard diesel transit bus, the cost of which is closer to $300,000" (Hybrid Center). Is a hybrid bus really worth and additional $200,000? Especially when studies show that emissions aren't necessarily reduced with hybrids as compared with conventional transit buses, "A recent study by the University of Connecticut measured the particulate emissions from two hybrid transit buses and two conventional diesel buses in over-the-road tests. The researchers found no decrease in particulate emissions from the hybrid buses compared with the conventional diesel buses" (Hybrid Center). Words like "hybrid" and "eco-friendly" are great buzz words for selling the public on over-priced things they don't need.