Santa Clara County's largest public transit agency will be audited by the state as one lawmaker looks to change up how it's run.
A state committee voted Wednesday to have the California State Auditor review the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) related to concerns about the agency's governance structure, planning and fiscal management. Assemblymember Marc Berman proposed the audit last year after deciding not to push forward with a reform bill, which would have shifted the composition of VTA's board to include more private citizens rather than elected officials.
"My hope is that this audit will give VTA the objective and professional feedback and direction it needs to undertake substantive governance reform so that the board can provide the high-quality oversight of the agency that riders, VTA staff and Santa Clara County taxpayers deserve," Berman said in a news release.
VTA's 18-member board is comprised of elected officials from Santa Clara County and its cities. Berman has argued the leadership structure is the cause of problems such as poor fare recovery and high operating costs.
"Over the last 20 years, three civil grand jury reports, multiple consultants hired by VTA and a 2008 audit by the state auditor have identified the need for change to VTA's governance structure in order for the board to be best equipped to provide high-quality oversight of the agency," Berman said. "The state auditor is uniquely equipped to look beyond individual interests and provide a cohesive, apolitical set of recommendations for VTA to use to have the important conversation of governance reform."
VTA has been criticized for having a dysfunctional work culture across multiple departments, as well as the poor state of its light rail cars. Operations have also been slow to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, with some passengers left stranded by buses that fail to arrive. The agency also faces fiscal uncertainty through 2031, largely due to a decline in revenue during the pandemic.
The public transit agency is extending BART through downtown San Jose to Santa Clara, and recently defended its ridership estimates after the Federal Transit Administration undercut the projected number of riders expected in 2040. The agency has been called out for its handling of the BART extension, including by business owners that will need to close shop to make way for new stations.
A VTA representative said the agency appreciates the support of the state as it examines options for revising the board's structure.
"We are pleased to know the members of the (California Joint State Audit Committee) understand the excellent work VTA has provided over the years to Santa Clara Valley residents and we look forward to continuously improving upon that good work," spokesperson Stacey Hendler Ross told San Jose Spotlight.
Monica Mallon, a local transit advocate and San Jose Spotlight columnist, said the audit is unlikely to result in meaningful improvements to service.
"I personally used to support governance reform, but over time as I've learned more and more about things, I've realized the real issue is the lack of funding for transit operations," Mallon told San Jose Spotlight. "For a lot of people, it's the service and it's the projects, or the lack of projects or the lack of transit lines. That's the real issue."
This story was originally published by San Jose Spotlight.
Comments
Registered user
Jackson Park
on Mar 24, 2023 at 2:28 pm
Registered user
on Mar 24, 2023 at 2:28 pm
It should be able to calculate the cost per rider mile. I suspect it doesn't fare favorably against ride sharing services like Uber or Lyft. VTA needs to contract its services to ones that it can run without a loss.
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:29 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:29 am
No transit agency, at least in the US, covered its own operating expenses from fares, even before COVID. The same is true of highways: they're subsidized by taxpayers, well beyond the gas tax. Sure, VTA had always run especially large losses, but let's not set unrealistic or unfair expectations.
Registered user
St. Francis Acres
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:48 am
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 7:48 am
Both Lyft and Uber have been consistently running with operating losses. Difference with VTA is that VCs subsidize these losses.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 27, 2023 at 1:41 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 1:41 pm
VTA gets 90% of its funding for transit from the public subsidies. A fare of $2.50 is matched by another $22.50 to mean that payment equates to $25. So it is NOT cheaper than most Lyft or Uber rides, even if those rides are really short!
The problem is that there are not enough customers for VTA's service. The average bus is close to empty. A few fraction of runs are heavily used and they do most of the actual farebox recovery. The farebox recovery for VTA is among the lowest in the country, if not the actual lowest. VTA is way bad.
Consider the ridiculously large size of VTA. It is not just about public transit. It has a lot of budget for road maintenance and the like. VTA is TOO BIG. Take away all but public transit at the very least. There should be separate agencies! It's so very bad that it escapes reasonable criticism because there are too many issues. It's so bad it escapes detection of just how bad it is.
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 27, 2023 at 3:09 pm
Registered user
on Mar 27, 2023 at 3:09 pm
Wow, @LongResident, I had no idea. Thank you for your comment.
Related - I've been on a quest to understand exactly how the RHNA targets were set for MV. WHY is MV being asked to build the most housing, as a percentage of existing households, in the region among cities with more than 5,000 residents? Along the way, I learned that the targets were apparently set based on population PREDICTIONS that were made about the future, including something called Plan Bay Area 2050, Web Link . Isn't that great? The overlords have decided what the future is going to look like, period. They must have some amazing crystal balls, eh?
"Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as required by federal regulations, and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as required by state statute."
Doesn't sound so bad, right?
"Plan Bay Area 2050 outlines a roadmap for the Bay Area’s future. While it pinpoints policies and investments necessary to advance the goal of a more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2050 neither funds specific infrastructure projects nor changes local policies. Cities and counties retain all local land use authority."
Check out that last line, which is obviously no longer true. MV is being mandated to add 11K housing units, based on guesses about what our city would/should look like in the year 2050! Those guesses were made in a Regional Transportation Plan, by entities that are doing such a bad job that "It's so bad it escapes detection of just how bad it is."
And then MV City Staff, who seem to be running the show, have somehow upped our target from 11K to 17K, to ensure that we "comply" and thus don't face sanctions. And of course even though the economy now includes massive layoffs and even bank runs(!), we are just going to keep marching along to the ridiculous tune that has been set by the state.
I don't think this will end well.