No wonder California is in such a mess. With clowns like this in the state assembly. The name of this particular clown is Leland Yee, and he's worried about the feng shui of California state buildings.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the focus of an op-ed by Greg Perry in this mornings Mercury News which details their high cost structure. This doesn't come as a surprise to me, after noticing all the nice gadgets mounted in the half full buses I've ridden. It looks like the people costs are a real problems to. I know that I haven't noticed any layoff, even though service has been cut recently. Here are a couple of excerpts:
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.
...
Ten years ago, it took the VTA 2.34 employee-hours to run a bus for one hour. Now it takes 3.15 employee-hours to keep that same bus running. Why does the VTA need more people now to do the same job? The national median is 1.91. Why does the VTA need 65 percent more people to run a bus than other agencies?As another example, New York City and Santa Barbara use 486 administrative hours per vehicle annually, just under the national median of 489. VTA uses 1,965 administrative hours per bus. The national median is about one administrative employee per four buses. VTA has roughly one administrative employee for each bus. There is no reason why the VTA number should be this high.
This year, my employer decided not to continue purchasing Ecopasses for their bay area employees because of a 150% increase in price. I know in my case, I'll be much less likely to ride the bus to work. And there have already been a few times on nights and weekends when I've decided to drive when I might previously have driven.
While I'm at it, I just don't see why the VTA continues to build light rail.
First, the main line through downtown is flawed. Because it runs at street level in downtown San Jose, it is very slow. So slow that it makes commuting from housing rich South San Jose to tech job rich North San Jose unattractive. Also going from South San Jose to the airport is long trip at any time. A better idea would have been either grade separating the light rail downtown, or providing a bypass around downtown. Maybe combining a local downtown circulator with the bypass would have made more sense.
Second, instead of light rail, dedicated busways would have made more sense. They are cheaper to build, and the buses can go into neighborhoods where it doesn't make sense to lay rails.
Here is the text of a speech by Michael Crichton. He discusses how unprovable ideas are dressed up as science, when what they really are is a religious belief. Here is a good quote:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Here is an interesting article. This advice is sounding better and better:
You can always go to college later, at age 25 -- you'll have a head start on all your contemporaries for one thing, in that you'll be able to find your own ass with your two hands -- but the training you learn as a teenager and in your early twenties will make you less likely to face catastrophe when, at age 35, your systems programming job is moved to Sumatra or Hong Kong. You'll be more self-reliant, and instead of being a corporate drone in the Dilbert environment, you might even be your own boss.