No matter how you configure it, public-sector transit is
inferior to private enterprise transports. Except for the subsidy
recipients, everyone suffers the consequences, like we do with
Amtrak, Caltrain, lite rail, and will if the bullet train’s
construction bonds are approved by the voters next year. Paying for
the county’s van pool operation falls mostly upon the
taxpayers.
Dear Editor:
No matter how you configure it, public-sector transit is inferior to private enterprise transports. Except for the subsidy recipients, everyone suffers the consequences, like we do with Amtrak, Caltrain, lite rail, and will if the bullet train’s construction bonds are approved by the voters next year. Paying for the county’s van pool operation falls mostly upon the taxpayers.
I think it is contrary to COG’s directors’ decision to privatize transport in our county. I also believe that it is contrary to existing, and proposed, SBC Regional Transportation Plan, and the policy contained therein. The taxpayers cannot afford SBC van pool any more than they can afford County Transit, and adherence to government van pool will be detrimental to the best interest of our county’s residents.
For example, assume that 11,128 daily commuters, with 15 passengers in each van, commute in SBC van pools every day. Assuming that the vans cost $30,00 each, SBC would need $22.3 million to purchase the van fleet. Since SBC gets back only 11 cents per dollar from Sacramento, the county’s taxpayers would need to send $20,263,636,000 to Sacramento so that would buy the vans for the commuters.
Assuming a four-year usable lifespan for the fleet, then every four years the county’s taxpayers would need to buy another fleet. If the taxpayers could shoulder this burden for 30 years, during that time it would take $151.5 billion in tax dollars to fund the commuters’ passenger equipment needs (more if van prices increased).
In comparison, at today’s house prices, it would be cheaper for SBC’s taxpayers if we bought our commuters houses, condos and mobile homes in Gilroy and paid their Caltrain fares to commute to their jobs in San Jose.
Any additional expenses would be extra on top of that unsustainable burden – adverse judgments and settlements from van pool crashes where SBC, as a joint venturer with the commuters, is held liable for injuries and deaths caused by van pooler’s negligence.
Also, insurance coverage for the fleet would be an additional expense borne by SBC taxpayers under the present arrangement.
I do not believe that this is sound, sustainable transportation. Party on, but caveat viator.
Joseph P. Thompson,
Tres Pinos
