Publish to Newswire
Add an EventSF 2003: Willie Brown's Muni Fare Hike & Unionbusting
See:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/25/BA74232.DTL
FIGHTBACK REQUIRED
In Willie Brown's last GOOD RIDDANCE YEAR, let us have the biggest, loudest fightback this city has ever seen against the worst mayor in San Francisco history, who sits in office with 40% of the vote plus election fraud and now has only 20% support. Since he clearly would rather not rest in his last year, neither can we, and in fact, we must see a very strong fightback, because his successor, whether it be Democrat Angela Alioto or Democrat Gavin Newsom, will try to carry on with Willie Brown's attacks on the workingclass as that is what a capitalist party, either Democrat or Republican Party, does to guarantee maximum profits to the capitalist class.
The history of Willie Brown's and the Democratic Party's election fraud may be found at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium and
http://www.brasscheck.com/jonestown
TAX THE RICH DOWNTOWN CORPORATIONS FOR MUNI AND CITY SERVICES
There is no reason for an anti-workingclass fare hike anywhere. The downtown Financial District can easily be made into a special tax district so that the City can tax the profits of the large corporations to pay for our bus and train system known as the Municipal Railway or Muni, and for all other city services, such as water, sewage and public safety, of which the Financial District is a major beneficiary. The labor force of the Financial District is transported to and from work to a great extent by Muni, and it is long overdue that the rich pay.
If for some reason this Financial District tax district is insufficient to overcome the deficit, then everyone who works in San Francisco and makes over $200,000 per year from all sources (that includes landlord's rental income, stock dividends and anything else) should pay a city income tax. The wealthy suburban dwellers use our services while here, usually while maximizing their profits, and then leave town with their wealth, draining the city's economy. That drain must end.
And, of course, there is the internal waste, starting first and foremost with the police department, which Willie Brown has increased from 1800 to 2200, with absolutely no increase in public safety whatsoever. In fact, we have these thugs beating up schoolchildren who happen to be black and beating up workers leaving their jobs with dinner in hand, stealing their food. Apparently the $70,000 per year and up salaries, plus fabulous benefits including medical care and pension are not enough for these greedy, and often drunken, thugs. Certainly no woman is safer because of the increase in police, although that is often the salespitch for hiring more police.
Then there are the salaries of the election-frauding thugs called Special Assistants sitting in Willie Brown's office, committing election fraud in every election to elect anti-workingclass candidates and murdering those who blew the whistle, such as Dolores Evans, a pollworker, with 5 children, were murdered by Willie Brown's election fraud team in their Housing Authority home on December 13, 1997, just as she was about to testify as to the election fraud she witnessed in the 49er Stadium Swindle Election of June 3, 1997, actively promoted by that infamous organized crime, gambling politician, whose gambling rackets certainly includes professional football, namely Willie Brown. The fire inspector told the Hearst Examiner that they could have escaped, but someone stopped them. I urge you to read the dedication to the Election Fraud website and its links carefully on the election fraud website so you will know the full horror of what is sitting illegally in the mayor's office. See:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Besides the police and special assistants, all the appointed cronies of Willie Brown can be and should be fired, including but not limited to the police chief, who continues to defend all the horrors perpetrated by the police department. If replacements are needed, we, the workingclass of San Francisco, will decide who is appointed and for what pay.
UNION BUSTING PLANNED OPENLY BY WILLIE BROWN, A GOOD DEMOCRAT
Before announcing his campaign for a Muni fare hike, Brown proudly announced his plan to attack labor. If the labor bureaucrats will not shut down this City to stop any and all attacks on labor, the city workers can do it themselves. These bureaucrats have been singing the tune of Willie Brown and the Democratic Party too long, and are not likely to fight back. Any labor official who supports Democrats does not support labor, and the sooner the workingclass learns that, the sooner fascist organized crime thugs like Willie Brown will be run out of office and the attacks on labor will end.
SIsters and Brothers, this is a labor era. It is time to fightback!
Also, check out this doc on-line:
'Anti-capitalist actions around mass transit in San Francisco, at:
http://infoshop.org/myep/love2.html
Let's get something like this together in 2003!
As to Muni service, it remains terrible on many lines. This writer witnesses the jam-packed commuter buses on Pine Street every weekday. I am sure there are many other horror stories from jam-packed buses and trains to very long waits for any bus or train, packed or not. Please publish your stories on this website as they are not being publicized and, if you can, attend the hearings of the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), and testify as to the bad service. If you cannot attend, send them a letter and send a copy of that letter to the Board of Supevisors.
The next hearing of the MTA is January 7, 2003 at 401 Van Ness, #334, San Francisco, CA 94102. Other contact information: Tel: 554-6896; Fax: 554-5143; E-mail: Roberta_Boomer [at] ci.sf.ca.us
Website:
http://www.sfgov.org/cgi-bin/publish/frame.cgi?href_value_inside=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgov.org%2Fmainpages%2Fdeptsall.htm%23m&href_value_outside=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfmuni.com%2F&href_value_hidden=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgov.org%2Fframes%2Fredirects%2Fsfmuni.htm
Other Sources:
http://www.sfmuni.com/aboutmun/geninfo.htm
Click Municipal Transportation Agency to get:
http://www.sfmuni.com/aboutmun/geninfo.htm#mta
Perhaps you are independently wealthy and you're going to volunteer to drive the trains or fix them, or pay utility bills, but I don't think so.
The big problems are these:
Republican's (like Willie), or should I say "elites," can afford to ride around in limos so they don't much care about the cost or quality of mass transit service.
Almost 50% of our Federal taxes goes toward the military -- from plastic bombers, to smart bombs, to star wars, the money we could spend for transportion and schools is squandered on America's Super Power status.
America's huge subsidy of the automobile industry is largely hidden from view -- from our pending Oil War on Iraq, to the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran (1953), to our current destabilization of Chavez in Venesuela, to the huge expense of maintaining American highways and roads, the public pays and pays.
We need to work toward changing America's priorities, but you can't get something for nothing.
rescue muni whined that we need to buy more diesel busses because they are more reliable than cleaner altfuels. reliability, according to them, gets people out of their cars and leads to a cleaner environment.
but when it comes to fares, the white male middle class rescue muni probably thinks that muni needs to move to a higher 'farebux recovery' rate, even though this will force more people out of MUNI and back into their cars.
Poor folks will tend to have poor cars which will pollute even more, clogging the streets and slowing down MUNI significantly.
No, the solution is to move towards a system of transportation bribery to replace fares.
Its in society's best interest to tax automobiles so that each time you ride BART, you get a shiny new nickel. Whenever you ride the MUNI Metro, a shiny new dime is yours. For surface lines, a shiny new quarter puts the choice of MUNI over auto over the top.
That said, there's a long way to go.
Expensive mistakes like the muni metro cat system(?) The french electronic stop train crashing into each other system, which tooks 2 years longer and probably millions more, eventually brought some improvements to the trains. Nextbus still seems like a bad memory of some crazy dotcom idea.. but its handy sometimes for figuring out if I can walk it faster that waiting for the bus... I know the F line is pretty and the muni workers restore them on their own time all that but did we really need to bring tourists to the Wharf? Wouldn't they have found it on the cable car?
I can't understand why we extended muni metro to the baseball park but not down 3rd street to bayview? That was a big mistake, and probably deliberate.
$1 is a fair fare for the system, raising it 25c-50c will probably not affect ridership that much (lets have the city commission an expensive, delayed, inconclusive survey shall we?), as long as passes and seniors/kids ride cheap (35c). It does strike me as odd though that Fast Passes are not readily available in corner stores (i.e. no incentive $$ for store owners to retail them)
Showing up at City Hall and giving public comment is the a great way Muni can be improved and also by riding it when you can. Every car on the city streets delays the buses another few seconds, reducing its overall efficiency which drives people back to cars.
1) It should be free. All funds to pay for this should come from taxation of corporations only.
2) A directly democratic organization of the transit workers should make all management decisions. There are any number of models available which could be modified to meet the transit workers' desires.
And that's it. What do we need to do for this to happen?
I think the issue is one of time more than money. Working people want to spend as much of their non-work time with their families, friends, etc. as possible.
I live in SF but work in Oakland. Taking Muni then BART to work and home took me two hours a day. Driving takes me 20 minutes to get to work, and 30 to get back, giving me an extra hour and 10 minutes a day of my life back. That's almost 6 hours a week, almost 300 hours a year or 7.5 FULL WORK WEEKS less spent commuting. I'd rather pay the $$ to drive (which isn't that much more than taking public transit) and have the extra time.
I lived in San Francisco from 1997 to 2002 and used Muni several times a day. The issues I raise in this article about the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency's financial crisis also apply to Muni.
I grew up in Toronto, a metropolitan area known for good transit. Imagine my surprise on arriving in the Bay Area! As a transit-dependent person I quickly got to know the (many) local agencies. When I wasn't commuting from San Francisco to Livermore, I was visiting Calistoga, Sacramento (Vallejo Baylink has since given up on Sacramento, leaving the market to Amtrak and Greyhound), Point Reyes, Jenner, Sonoma, or Santa Cruz. Though I now live in Santa Cruz, I use VTA and Caltrain on a more-or-less weekly basis, and the other Bay Area systems, on an occasional basis. I care not just about the individual agencies, but also about how they fit -- or don't fit -- together.
Since last February I have been working to improve Santa Cruz Metro. Profile:
- Projected deficit for 2003-2004: up to $3 million or 9% (after small service cut in 2002-2003)
- Adult single-ride fare: $1
- Discount single-ride fare: 40 cents
- Transfers: not allowed [very different from Muni]
- Years since last local fare increase: 10+
As well as having unusually high per-capita transit usage, Santa Cruz County has a peculiar mix of services. The fare for a ride to San Jose on the Highway 17 Express is $3, but it's just $1 for a ride to Watsonville -- a journey of equal length. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the northern part of the County, so there is a social obligation to provide low-cost service from Watsonville.
In November, management sought the board's guidance on a proposal to raise single-ride fares by 25% and monthly pass prices by 12.5%. The senior/disabled discount would have remained at 60%+. The package might generate as little as $250,000 -- not enough to avoid a drastic service cut. I launched a thorough financial and economic analysis. In hopes of preserving service and keeping it affordable for those in need, I have been working to bring about a larger but more equitable increase. I co-presented detailed fare revenue projections with the assistant general manager at the last board meeting.
What's behind my position? Facts about Santa Cruz County:
- Maximum fare paid by seniors: < 40 cents
- System average fare: ~ 80 cents [calculated from monthly agency reports]
- Percentage of seniors living in poverty: 6.3% [Census 2000]
- Percentage of all adults living in poverty: 11.4% [Census 2000]
- Percentage of fare revenue from occasional riders: ~ 44% [calculated]
- Percentage of rides taken by occasional riders: ~ 36% [calculated]
- Increase in local (Bay Area) Consumer Price Index since last fare increase: ~ 35% [Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Alas it will be difficult to correct certain transit myths:
1. Passholders deserve greater discounts, at the expense of occasional riders.
Passholders already take more rides than they pay for. Passholders tend to be commuters. They pay their fares from wages, and so should consider transportation costs when making employment and housing decisions. The peak-hour services that passholders use also happen to be among the most expensive. Metro's labor contract severely limits part-time work while providing significant penalties for split shifts.
2. Seniors deserve greater discounts, at the expense of working adults.
Eligibility for federal operating subsidies is contingent on the provision of a 50% off-peak single-ride discount to seniors and the disabled. There is an economic case for helping any rider whose disability limits his job prospects; there is a social obligation toward low-income riders in general. But there is no economic case for helping well-to-do riders. Recent census data for Santa Cruz County show that poverty is more common among adults than it is among seniors. At the social or group level, the usual "fixed income" claim is false. A working adult can be laid off, and his wages are already stagnant or declining. A Social Security beneficiary cannot be laid off, and his benefits rise annually with inflation (indexing). Seniors enjoy substantial property tax concessions in California, and a capital gains tax concession at the federal level. Seniors who use transit are poorer than average; likewise, working adults who use transit are poorer than average. In short, the federally-mandated 50% senior discount is very generous. Metro gives 60 to 65% and extends the discount to monthly passes and off-peak trips. That money could better be spent on an all-ages low-income pass with verifiable eligibility criteria.
3. Fares must never go up.
It's wonderful when a sales tax bonanza allows Metro to pay its growing wage and benefit costs -- and perhaps add a little service -- without raising fares. As fares lag, the subsidy per ride creeps up. The longer this goes on, the harder it becomes to raise fares and catch up. Worse yet, when the economy falters, Metro is left with unproductive service, declining ridership, and sharply declining subsidies. At Golden Gate Transit, fares have been indexed to the cost of living since the mid-1990's (this hasn't prevented a financial crisis there, because bridge tolls, a more important source of revenue, were held constant for many years). BART divided a substantial fare increase over three years in the late 1990's. After ten years of inaction at Metro, catching up to the cost of living alone would require a 35% increase. Even 50% might not save all bus service.
4. Service must never be cut.
Most people would agree that subsidized resources should be allocated on the basis of need -- unless their bus service is at stake, of course! Some Metro lines see fewer than 15 passengers per hour of service, and others, over 60! If revenues don't match expenses, and if borrowing or bailouts are impossible, some service must be cut. The cuts should be guided by demand. If helping people get to work is important, for example, we can help more people get to work by deleting the unpopular services and saving the popular ones. Of course, temporary cuts likely to turn away riders forever (cf. AC Transit's 1996 night and weekend package) should be avoided at all costs.
The Toronto Transit Commission is an anomaly, what with its strict performance criteria. Since riders pay over 80% of the TTC's operating costs (yes, 80%), their needs are paramount. Staff turn down requests that would worsen the TTC's finances. Underutilized service is trimmed on a regular basis so that the funds can be shifted to busy lines. If overall budget cuts are necessary, underutilized services are first to go. The TTC expresses its threshold, which is based on empirical data, as "0.23 riders gained or lost per dollar spent or saved."
5. We can get more riders if we just...
Advertising campaigns, service improvements, promotions, and other initiatives to increase ridership are rarely subject to a full and final accounting of costs and benefits. A TV spot probably costs more than the new fares it generates. Synchronizing schedules probably increases operating costs beyond the amount of fare revenue gained. Ads prepared by in-house personnel with no training in advertising are as cheap as they are ineffective. In any case, boosting ridership is a slow process.
I'm curious why the VTA Riders Union seems to be categorically opposed to service cuts and fare increases. I'm also curious why the Riders Union would issue such weak recommendations vis-a-vis VTA's quest for financial stability.
A. Fares
As you know VTA's farebox recovery ratio -- say 10% -- is among the lowest. The CEOs from the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group are ignoring reality when they talk about raising it to the "peer average" of 30%. Setting aside the laws of price elasticity (which would call for a greater-than-3x increase to make up for lost business), who would pay $216 for an express monthly pass? But there's got to be some middle ground between the VTARU's desire for no increase and the SVMG's desire for a cumulative increase of over 200%. Or between the current senior/disabled monthly pass discount of 84.7% and the federally-mandated level of 0%.
B. Service
I am grateful that public protest has forced VTA to spare more service for the moment. But was the argument, "don't cut anything", "cut whatever you like, as long as it's not my bus line", or "we want ridership and service hour data by line, day, and hour so that we can be sure these cuts are fair and sensible"? Granted, the last approach isn't easy, and the results may be unexpected. Here at Metro no one was monitoring individual lines for productivity; management suggested that I count per-line service hours by working backward from the published timetable!
C. Stability recommendations
None of VTARU's short-term recommendations can plug the immediate hole in VTA's budget, and some might actually increase net operating costs.
- Synchronize schedules - takes time to implement, takes time for riders to respond, costs go up (extra operator waiting time between and during bus trips), fare revenue goes up by an unknown, but limited, amount
- Advertise - takes a long time for riders to respond, costs go up (advertising space, production), fare revenue goes up by an unknown amount
- Make VTA personnel ride the bus instead of driving courtesy cars - great idea, but how much money does this save (actual dollar value)
- Delay the issuance of the BART to San Jose bonds - no immediate impact since, as I understand it, these weren't scheduled for immediate issuance and don't become a drain for some years (long-term impact may be worth investigating, but the bonds will have to be issued eventually, and interest rates are bound to go up)
I'm not criticizing the VTA Riders Union for the sake of criticizing it. I'm saying that we, as transit riders, have got to make stronger, more practical arguments, and be prepared to back them up. We've also got to be fair. The fare increase I'm advocating for Metro would cost me $240 a year, the largest possible increment. If a smaller package is approved and drastic service cuts become necessary, I won't suffer much: the lines I use are the busiest ones in the system (one reason I chose to live where I do). I'm not in this to keep my fares down while others pay more; to preserve my service while others lose theirs; or, worse yet, to electrify a commuter rail line that carries fewer people than some busways [sorry, Caltrain, but this is true] because I love trains so much. I'm in this because I want a viable transit system.
Ultimately we've got to put ourselves in the driver's seat. I think VTA's problems are due to long-term mismanagement. Would transit riders do any better, though, with our categorical opposition to fare increases and service cuts, our faith in silly initiatives ("Part of every trip you take"), and our denial of economic reality?
Paul Marcelin
nospam_marcelin@alumni.CarnegieMellon.edu (remove the nospam_ prefix before sending!)
I lived in San Francisco from 1997 to 2002 and used Muni several times a day. The issues I raise in this article about the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency's financial crisis also apply to Muni.
I grew up in Toronto, a metropolitan area known for good transit. Imagine my surprise on arriving in the Bay Area! As a transit-dependent person I quickly got to know the (many) local agencies. When I wasn't commuting from San Francisco to Livermore, I was visiting Calistoga, Sacramento (Vallejo Baylink has since given up on Sacramento, leaving the market to Amtrak and Greyhound), Point Reyes, Jenner, Sonoma, or Santa Cruz. Though I now live in Santa Cruz, I use VTA and Caltrain on a more-or-less weekly basis, and the other Bay Area systems, on an occasional basis. I care not just about the individual agencies, but also about how they fit -- or don't fit -- together.
Since last February I have been working to improve Santa Cruz Metro. Profile:
- Projected deficit for 2003-2004: up to $3 million or 9% (after small service cut in 2002-2003)
- Adult single-ride fare: $1
- Discount single-ride fare: 40 cents
- Transfers: not allowed [very different from Muni]
- Years since last local fare increase: 10+
As well as having unusually high per-capita transit usage, Santa Cruz County has a peculiar mix of services. The fare for a ride to San Jose on the Highway 17 Express is $3, but it's just $1 for a ride to Watsonville -- a journey of equal length. Economic opportunity is concentrated in the northern part of the County, so there is a social obligation to provide low-cost service from Watsonville.
In November, management sought the board's guidance on a proposal to raise single-ride fares by 25% and monthly pass prices by 12.5%. The senior/disabled discount would have remained at 60%+. The package might generate as little as $250,000 -- not enough to avoid a drastic service cut. I launched a thorough financial and economic analysis. In hopes of preserving service and keeping it affordable for those in need, I have been working to bring about a larger but more equitable increase. I co-presented detailed fare revenue projections with the assistant general manager at the last board meeting.
What's behind my position? Facts about Santa Cruz County:
- Maximum fare paid by seniors: < 40 cents
- System average fare: ~ 80 cents [calculated from monthly agency reports]
- Percentage of seniors living in poverty: 6.3% [Census 2000]
- Percentage of all adults living in poverty: 11.4% [Census 2000]
- Percentage of fare revenue from occasional riders: ~ 44% [calculated]
- Percentage of rides taken by occasional riders: ~ 36% [calculated]
- Increase in local (Bay Area) Consumer Price Index since last fare increase: ~ 35% [Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Alas it will be difficult to correct certain transit myths:
1. Passholders deserve greater discounts, at the expense of occasional riders.
Passholders already take more rides than they pay for. Passholders tend to be commuters. They pay their fares from wages, and so should consider transportation costs when making employment and housing decisions. The peak-hour services that passholders use also happen to be among the most expensive. Metro's labor contract severely limits part-time work while providing significant penalties for split shifts.
2. Seniors deserve greater discounts, at the expense of working adults.
Eligibility for federal operating subsidies is contingent on the provision of a 50% off-peak single-ride discount to seniors and the disabled. There is an economic case for helping any rider whose disability limits his job prospects; there is a social obligation toward low-income riders in general. But there is no economic case for helping well-to-do riders. Recent census data for Santa Cruz County show that poverty is more common among adults than it is among seniors. At the social or group level, the usual "fixed income" claim is false. A working adult can be laid off, and his wages are already stagnant or declining. A Social Security beneficiary cannot be laid off, and his benefits rise annually with inflation (indexing). Seniors enjoy substantial property tax concessions in California, and a capital gains tax concession at the federal level. Seniors who use transit are poorer than average; likewise, working adults who use transit are poorer than average. In short, the federally-mandated 50% senior discount is very generous. Metro gives 60 to 65% and extends the discount to monthly passes and off-peak trips. That money could better be spent on an all-ages low-income pass with verifiable eligibility criteria.
3. Fares must never go up.
It's wonderful when a sales tax bonanza allows Metro to pay its growing wage and benefit costs -- and perhaps add a little service -- without raising fares. As fares lag, the subsidy per ride creeps up. The longer this goes on, the harder it becomes to raise fares and catch up. Worse yet, when the economy falters, Metro is left with unproductive service, declining ridership, and sharply declining subsidies. At Golden Gate Transit, fares have been indexed to the cost of living since the mid-1990's (this hasn't prevented a financial crisis there, because bridge tolls, a more important source of revenue, were held constant for many years). BART divided a substantial fare increase over three years in the late 1990's. After ten years of inaction at Metro, catching up to the cost of living alone would require a 35% increase. Even 50% might not save all bus service.
4. Service must never be cut.
Most people would agree that subsidized resources should be allocated on the basis of need -- unless their bus service is at stake, of course! Some Metro lines see fewer than 15 passengers per hour of service, and others, over 60! If revenues don't match expenses, and if borrowing or bailouts are impossible, some service must be cut. The cuts should be guided by demand. If helping people get to work is important, for example, we can help more people get to work by deleting the unpopular services and saving the popular ones. Of course, temporary cuts likely to turn away riders forever (cf. AC Transit's 1996 night and weekend package) should be avoided at all costs.
The Toronto Transit Commission is an anomaly, what with its strict performance criteria. Since riders pay over 80% of the TTC's operating costs (yes, 80%), their needs are paramount. Staff turn down requests that would worsen the TTC's finances. Underutilized service is trimmed on a regular basis so that the funds can be shifted to busy lines. If overall budget cuts are necessary, underutilized services are first to go. The TTC expresses its threshold, which is based on empirical data, as "0.23 riders gained or lost per dollar spent or saved."
5. We can get more riders if we just...
Advertising campaigns, service improvements, promotions, and other initiatives to increase ridership are rarely subject to a full and final accounting of costs and benefits. A TV spot probably costs more than the new fares it generates. Synchronizing schedules probably increases operating costs beyond the amount of fare revenue gained. Ads prepared by in-house personnel with no training in advertising are as cheap as they are ineffective. In any case, boosting ridership is a slow process.
I'm curious why the VTA Riders Union seems to be categorically opposed to service cuts and fare increases. I'm also curious why the Riders Union would issue such weak recommendations vis-a-vis VTA's quest for financial stability.
A. Fares
As you know VTA's farebox recovery ratio -- say 10% -- is among the lowest. The CEOs from the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group are ignoring reality when they talk about raising it to the "peer average" of 30%. Setting aside the laws of price elasticity (which would call for a greater-than-3x increase to make up for lost business), who would pay $216 for an express monthly pass? But there's got to be some middle ground between the VTARU's desire for no increase and the SVMG's desire for a cumulative increase of over 200%. Or between the current senior/disabled monthly pass discount of 84.7% and the federally-mandated level of 0%.
B. Service
I am grateful that public protest has forced VTA to spare more service for the moment. But was the argument, "don't cut anything", "cut whatever you like, as long as it's not my bus line", or "we want ridership and service hour data by line, day, and hour so that we can be sure these cuts are fair and sensible"? Granted, the last approach isn't easy, and the results may be unexpected. Here at Metro no one was monitoring individual lines for productivity; management suggested that I count per-line service hours by working backward from the published timetable!
C. Stability recommendations
None of VTARU's short-term recommendations can plug the immediate hole in VTA's budget, and some might actually increase net operating costs.
- Synchronize schedules - takes time to implement, takes time for riders to respond, costs go up (extra operator waiting time between and during bus trips), fare revenue goes up by an unknown, but limited, amount
- Advertise - takes a long time for riders to respond, costs go up (advertising space, production), fare revenue goes up by an unknown amount
- Make VTA personnel ride the bus instead of driving courtesy cars - great idea, but how much money does this save (actual dollar value)
- Delay the issuance of the BART to San Jose bonds - no immediate impact since, as I understand it, these weren't scheduled for immediate issuance and don't become a drain for some years (long-term impact may be worth investigating, but the bonds will have to be issued eventually, and interest rates are bound to go up)
I'm not criticizing the VTA Riders Union for the sake of criticizing it. I'm saying that we, as transit riders, have got to make stronger, more practical arguments, and be prepared to back them up. We've also got to be fair. The fare increase I'm advocating for Metro would cost me $240 a year, the largest possible increment. If a smaller package is approved and drastic service cuts become necessary, I won't suffer much: the lines I use are the busiest ones in the system (one reason I chose to live where I do). I'm not in this to keep my fares down while others pay more; to preserve my service while others lose theirs; or, worse yet, to electrify a commuter rail line that carries fewer people than some busways [sorry, Caltrain, but this is true] because I love trains so much. I'm in this because I want a viable transit system.
Ultimately we've got to put ourselves in the driver's seat. I think VTA's problems are due to long-term mismanagement. Would transit riders do any better, though, with our categorical opposition to fare increases and service cuts, our faith in silly initiatives ("Part of every trip you take"), and our denial of economic reality?
Paul Marcelin
nospam_marcelin@alumni.CarnegieMellon.edu (remove the nospam_ prefix before sending!)
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.