VTA ridership down, bus shelters, paratransit

As expected, VTA ridership fell because of the poor economy (which caused fare hikes, service cuts, and fewer people commuting due to unemployment). During the last fiscal year, bus ridership has gone down 7.3% compared to the year before, and Light rail ridership has gone down by about 9.3%. Ridership on paratransit has dropped by 12.8%, which was partly caused by an increase in fares for premium service to $16 per trip. Same-day and open return rides fell by 38% and 64% respectively.

While VTA is not proposing any additional service cuts in the near future, you might see dirtier bus shelters. Most of the bus shelters in Santa Clara County were built and are currently maintained by Clear Channel, which sells advertising spaces on 75% of the bus shelters. Clear Channel pays VTA and the cities a portion of the ad revenue. The ad agency also pays contractors to clean the shelters.

Because of the economy, VTA was not able to attract new proposals from ad agencies to replace and maintain the shelters. Instead VTA staff has recommended to extend the Clear Channel's contract for 2 years. As part of the contract extension, Clear Channel would reduce advertising to only half of all shelters (because it couldn't sell that many) and all the shelters would have fewer trash clean ups (because it cost them too much to pick up garbage illegally dumped by neighbors).

Currently most shelters are cleaned weekly with some others cleaned 2 or 3 times per week. The contract extension would cut the total cleanings by 2/3. Some of the shelters would also have the trash bins removed.

VTA really doesn't have a choice here. The ad agencies are not able to offer VTA better deals and VTA cannot afford to clean and maintain shelters on its own.

For paratransit riders, most of them should be pleased to know that Outreach would continue to be VTA's paratransit broker for at least 2 years. Over the years, there were rumors that VTA would drop Outreach as its paratransit broker. In 2004, as part of Pete Cipolla's cost cutting move, VTA contracted with Orthopaedic Hospital in Los Angeles for paratransit eligibility verification. The contract drew criticisms from the disabled community because of its policy to require an in-person interview. VTA finally relented and Outreach resumed eligibility process in 2006.

VTA staff is stating on-the-record that its relationship with Outreach has provided better customer service and helped save VTA money. With Outreach conducting the eligibility process, it has directed some people who are not eligible for paratransit to enroll with other transportation programs that Outreach provides (and not funded by VTA). Over the years, Outreach has received federal grants to replace paratransit vehicles which VTA otherwise would have to fund. Recently, Outreach has also coordinated with other non-profits to share vehicles for paratransit rides, which reduced per trip cost by more than half.

Overall, Outreach helped control VTA's cost and improve farebox recovery. Currently the farebox recovery for paratransit is 10.7%. In comparison, farebox recovery for paratransit is 7.5% in Santa Cruz and East Bay, 8.7% in Sacramento, and 3.2% at SamTrans.

Does VTA know the way to financial recovery?

Without much fanfare, VTA's ad-hoc financial recovery committee (comprised of some boardmembers and "stakeholders" like former vice-mayor Cindy Chavez) is reviewing various strategies to keep cost under control. Some of these ideas have been discussed in the previous financial stability committee back in 2003. VTA is currently looking for ways to increase ongoing revenues or decrease ongoing costs, rather than one-time revenues like the ARRA grants.

Ideas:

- Eliminate Eco Pass - Rather than allowing employers to buy annual transit stickers for all of their employees, VTA is considering eliminate that program and require all riders pay the regular fares. VTA believes the Eco Pass program is underpriced. According to VTA, if 50% of riders using Eco Pass pay the regular fares, VTA would break even on fare revenue. If less than 50% of those riders continue to pay the fare and ride VTA, VTA would be better off keeping Eco Pass.

- Extend 2000 Measure A indefinitely - While portions of the 2000 Measure A funds support the existing operation, it is a silly idea because it has no implication in the near term. Measure A isn't ready to expire until 2036.

- Service cuts - Not a new idea. Although VTA has a policy in place to evaluate low ridership services, VTA can't continually just cut services alone.

- Privatize transit service through competitive contracting - Privatizing service is popular among the business interests, but is heavily opposed by the labor groups. VTA says other agencies who have pursued contracting saved 32%-38% in operating costs. VTA used to outsource services like the DASH and the light rail shuttles. Today VTA only contracts out the ACE shuttles, which are funded by grants. As a variation, VTA could potentially use contracting for "new" services like BRT.

One of the biggest cost drivers is the health insurance cost for employees. In less than ten years, health/dental insurance premiums have more than doubled, from less than $15 million in 2000/2001 to over $30 million in 2008/2009. The employee contribution only covers a small fraction of the rising cost. VTA is considering plans to reduce employee benefits or require additional contributions from employees to cover more of the cost.

Unlike the previous 2003 committee, this committee has not (yet) proposed large fare increases (which didn't work), new taxes (since they would most likely fail), and tougher eligibility requirements for paratransit services. Back then, the proposal on paratransit received strong opposition from the disabled community. Although VTA approved most of the ideas, the board later reversed many of those policies.

Caltrain and VTA budget update

On the last night's Angie Coiro Show (6pm on KKGN 960am), Caltrain information officer Christine Dunn told the audience that Caltrain was able to narrow the budget gap to about $2 million. Because of that, Caltrain has withdrawn the plan to shutdown weekend and Gilroy service, which both proved to be very unpopular. However, Caltrain still plans to reduce midday service to hourly, increase parking fees, and increase fees for companies that buy Go passes.

Caltrain was able to narrow the budget gap by reducing administrative cost, redirect some federal funds for preventive maintenance, and stabilize fuel cost through fuel hedging.

Even though core Caltrain service may survive this year's budget cycle, the future is uncertain because of the lack of dedicated funding.

For VTA, the board is expected to approve the biannual budget at its meeting tomorrow night. The budget includes fare increases and reduction on paratransit services.

Due to the outcry from the disabled community, VTA has made some adjustments to the proposal that would cut paratransit service:

• * Open returns - fare will be 4 times the regular paratransit fare (now twice). Only one open return can be requested per day, can only be done if space is available, among other restrictions.
• * Second vehicle - service will be retained and will be standardized to 4 times the regular fare (now 5 times).
• * Out of area service - service will be retained for an area within a mile beyond the 3/4 mile of a regular transit route. The premium fare for that area will be 4 times the regular fare. The current surcharge exemption in the South County will be eliminated.
• * Extended service hours - no changes proposed, which means there will be no paratransit service at the times when regular routes are not running.

Although the revised plan has addressed some impacts on disabled riders (like those who need to travel for dialysis treatments), it will nonetheless a step backwards for an agency that has promised voters (through the 2000 Measure A) to improve paratransit service. Apparently, the VTA board was and still attached to Carl Guardino, who only considers paratransit to be a service just to attract voter support.

My commute sucks...no thanks to SVLG

Transportation 4 America unveiled mycommutesucks.org, a web site that allows riders to express their transit experience. This is an important year as Congress will be taking action on the next federal transportation bill, which would provide billions for various transportation projects.

Guess who is in favor of cutting Caltrain service? Of course SVLG. SVLG often implies that no other taxes other than for BART could pass, but people in the North Bay and in LA suggested otherwise. Not only SVLG has done nothing to address the short term and long term funding needs for Caltrain and other transit, SVLG in the past recommended to slash funding for Caltrain and paratransit. Both are all on the chopping block this year.

With the broken budget process and SVLG's influence on corporate tax cuts from Sacramento, things will have to get much worse before it gets better. The propositions (except Prop 1F) in the upcoming special election deserve to be defeated.

Attack on paratransit

VTA, on a despite search for more money, has proposed a number of measures that would impact paratransit riders. Paratransit is an ADA mandated program that provides curb to curb service to disabled individuals that are unable to access or use regular transit. Because paratransit cost much more per passenger for VTA to operate, paratransit has become a cost cutting target.

It is not the first time VTA has targeted paratransit. In 2002, a Business Review Team chaired by Carl Guardino has suggested that VTA should make paratransit much more expensive for disabled riders. In 2003, the VTA Board adopted most of the Guardino's recommendations, which included fare hikes on services that were beyond ADA-minimum requirements. VTA also adjusted paratransit qualification process and made it unfriendly for the users. VTA later revised the qualification process after numerous complaints.

This time, VTA plans to eliminate most of the "premium" services:

Open returns - VTA proposes to discontinue a service that allowed riders to make initial reservation without a return trip, in which the rider would make a same day request for the return trip when he or she is ready.

Second vehicle - VTA plans to eliminate the option for riders to request a second vehicle if they change their travel plan. However VTA insists that it would left riders stranded.

Out of service area - The minimum requirement for VTA to provide paratransit service is 3/4 mile from a bus or light rail line. Because of various service reductions implemented years ago, VTA continues to operate paratransit service beyond the 3/4 mile from existing transit by charging $7 per such trip. Riders in the south county do not have to pay the surcharge. If VTA were to eliminate this service, many paratransit riders would effectively lose their transportation with no fault of their own. In its letter to paratransit riders, VTA says that these riders will still be eligible for paratransit, but could only ride it if the riders can come within 3/4 mile of whatever VTA provides. This is insulting because if these riders could independently travel to within 3/4 mile of VTA lines, they perhaps won't need paratransit at all.

Extended service hours - Current paratransit hours are from 5am to 2am, everyday, with 24 hour availability along line 22 (which runs 24 hours) and light rail. VTA is proposing to reduce paratransit availability to 3/4 miles of a transit line ONLY on the days and hours when that line is in operation.

Reservation changes - For now riders can book trips as short as one day in advance and as long as 14 days. VTA plans to shorten the period from 14 days to 7 days, and then from 7 days to 3 days. With shortening of the reservation period, VTA would also introduce an automated phone reservation system. Such changes would create barriers to those who have difficulty in using phones, as well as those relying on others to help them place reservations.

Altogether, the proposed cuts for paratransit are much steeper than what is proposed for bus and light rail. It is unconscionable for VTA to pursue new funding (like HOT funding through AB744) for other things while cutting services needed by the disabled community. Seniors and disabled riders should not have to pay for VTA's incompetence and lack of leadership.