Friday, February 20, 2004
VTA is hardly working on cutting costs
Don Gage, who chaired the VTA ad hoc Financial Stability Committee, responded to an editorial written by Greg Perry for the Mercury News. He rebutts the assertions made by Mr. Perry. But his remarks fail to address the points made in Mr. Perry's article.
He begins by stating that three unnamed independent consultants hired by VTA "made it clear that the National Transit Database, on which the January commentary was based, has considerable limitations." He cites geography and demographics as two factors that limit its usefulness.
However, Mr. Perry, in his editorial, compares VTA with Contra Costa County and San Mateo County, both of whom are local and have similar demographics to Santa Clara County. "The VTA spends $134 to run a bus for one hour. The national median average is $58. Contra Costa County spends $73. Laidlaw, a private bus company, spends only $44.50 an hour.
"The VTA's high costs are not explained by the cost of living, or the fact that the VTA covers a large area. San Mateo County has both problems, and it manages with $108 per hour to run a bus."
Mr. Gage goes on to say that VTA has done much in the last two years to cut costs, citing "a new fare policy" (hiking fares), and renegotiating labor contracts. He even says the unions did it "because they care about the VTA and our riders." He fails to mention until later in his article that VTA has already laid off bus drivers twice and that fear of another layoff was a major factor in the willingness of the union to renegotiate.
He also cites a change of business practices regarding ADA paratransit service, reducing costs by 11.6% according to him. What they did was no longer provide front door service to the disabled. Instead, they provide service to the bus line that comes nearest the final destination.
He says, "Nearly 550 positions -- about 20 percent of the VTA's workforce -- have been eliminated throughout the organization over the past 18 months. Departments have been reorganized, functions have been consolidated and operations streamlined."
Nice words, but essentially meaningless. Reorganized? Consolidated? Streamlined?
While, according to his figures, VTA has reduced the number of employee hours required to operate a bus from 3.15 to 2.89, that is still significantly above the national average of 1.91
He then pats VTA, and himself, on the back--citing a one-time "financial transaction involving capital assets to generate $29 million to maintain current service." What he doesn't tell us is that they sold their light rail vehicles and then leased them back. VTA doesn't even own its own equipment!
At the end of his article he cites an increase in the consumer price index to support his assertion that more taxes are needed to run VTA. His thinking is still about "Where can we find more money to continue running this thing without making real changes to our organization?"
The reforms needed at VTA need to be in administration. There are far too many people working at River Oaks. The problem is that telling that to VTA is like telling a condemned convict to perform his own execution.
