SAN JOSE, Calif. — A grand jury report has blasted the San Jose area’s public transit system as “one of the most expensive and least efficient … in the country,” the San Jose Mercury News reports.
The report released last week says the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which operates bus and light rail systems, is too big and too political to make sound decisions.
The authority’s chairwoman, Santa Clara City Councilwoman Teresa O’Neill, told the paper she agreed with many of the findings in the 61-page report, if not all of its analysis. She said she had made better governance a priority since becoming chairwoman.
The system covers only 9% of its costs through fare recovery. Taxpayers cover the remaining 91%, which works out to about $9.28 per passenger trip.
There may be trouble ahead of another type for the VTA. KQED radio reports its workers union has voted 912-92 to reject the agency’s “last, best, and final” contract offer, setting the stage for a strike as soon as this week. Members of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265 had previous authorized a strike. They must provide 72 hours’ notice before striking.
Before Anderson, many Amtrak long distance trains had a 95 percent farebox recovery… ( operating costs, not capital expenditures). Most transit operates at 50 percent or less. 9 percent is approaching dismal…
Thank you John Rice for what I believe is the best answer. I totally agree with your conclusions.
The article should’ve pointed out this is a CIVIL grand jury, not a criminal one.
My experience with VTA is that service is very poor and ill coordinated with other modes (like transferring to Caltrain at Mountain View). A VTA rep once told me that they make no effort to coordinate arrival times with Caltrain runs going north to San Francisco. Indeed, the timetable (they’re almost always on time) had the VTA light rail arriving 3 minutes before the northbound train to SF mid day. They couldn’t have cared less.
In California, county grand juries are charged with conducting all manner of investigations of local government agencies and making their findings public. The State Auditor performs a similar function for state agencies. It’s rather like what the GAO does at the federal level.
A county grand jury investigation does not automatically imply suspicion of criminal conduct. Sometimes that turns up, but far more frequently a grand jury report identifies non-criminal deficiencies, putting the heat on boards of supervisors, agency boards, and so on to get their act together.
If anyone knows the answer, why is a grand jury investigating the inefficiencies of a transit system? Is it considered criminal for a transit system to be inefficient? If that is the case then all of them are in big trouble and that is only the tip of the governmental inefficiencies.
Grand jury is due to the fact there was a large degree of cronyism and fraud in some of the contracts and route decisions, and possible fraud involved. Hence a GJ.
One problem right off the bat is that the chair is an elected assembly person. Transportation authorities (especially regional ones) should not be run by someone who already has a conflicting political constituency.
That is why many directors are appointed by the politicos of the areas they serve. Then they can’t nominate themselves.
A grand jury does not give the “accused” the same rights as other trials, right to cross examine witnesses is a big one not present in grand juries. Also, grand juries testimony is to be secret. As a laymen I am skeptical of grand jury findings. Maybe Anna could lend some insight here
All Democrats and many Republicans (me) accept reasonable tax subsidy of public transit. That being said, 9% farebox recovery is not acceptable. At that point, remove the farebox and just have free transit, saving the costs of collecting fares and accounting in the back office.
Not often I agree with you Charles, but you are right on here.
ROBERT – In answer to your question. I might suggest this: modern-day Liberal America has decriminalized crime while criminalizing anything it disagrees with.