Politics

HRT: Increase Fare or Efficiency

I, more than anyone, want HRT to be as efficient as possible. However, when I read the news that HRT’s temporary President and CEO, Philip Schucet, wanted to postpone raising the fare so that he could hire a consultant to look for savings, I was concerned. A consultant will probably cost HRT between $100,000 and $250,000. Basically, their job will be to collect loose change at HRT to pay their own consultant fee. Additionally, the VP states:

The consultant will consider a range of adjustments, including increasing bus frequencies on popular routes to encourage more ridership and reducing frequencies on less popular routes to save money.

HRT doesn’t need a consultant for this. Any frequent rider would tell you that if you increased frequency, ridership would increase. Lengthening the operating hours would do that as well. Regarding saving money by cutting low-performing routes, HRT cannot enact these changes. Each city would have to cut its own service. Route 18 in Norfolk has terrible ridership. HRT is aware. The City is aware. Unfortunately, the City of Norfolk will not kill the route for fear that the few riders that do utilize it will revolt.

Attention HRT: I will give you advice for free. Increase frequency at peak hours of high-ridership routes such as the #2, #3, #20, etc. On low performing routes such as the #18, modify the route to go places that people actually would want to go. For example, the #18 could continue down Cromwell, make a right on Tidewater, a right on Norview, and continue to the Airport. The southern end of the route would loop  and end in Grandy Village and Chesterfield Heights. This way the route would work as a feeder to light rail and serve Norfolk International Airport, with appears to be the only major airport without transit service. Ridership would also increase due to service to a number of apartment/condo communities and to multiple shopping centers. Routes like the new #14 could increase ridership by lengthening the route to accommodate development that has occurred since the route was originally developed. In order to fund expanded service, however, HRT will need more money. That money will probably not come from the cities, the state, or the federal government. They don’t have any extra money. That leaves a fare increase.

According to the VP, only 20% of HRT’s budget is covered by the current fare as opposed to the 40% covered at comparable transit agencies. That means HRT needs to raise over $14 million in fares to reach 40%.  HRT is diverting federal maintenance money toward operations. If this is continued, HRT’s infrastructure (buildings, buses, etc.) will deteriorate. There is no way a consultant will find $14 million in savings. I am not saying that a fare increase would solve all of HRT’s problems, but it would be a start. Unfortunately, a fare increase takes time to get approval. I am afraid that by the time this consultant is finished, the time will have passed where a 50 cent increase will no longer cover an expansion in services.

I think HRT should move forward with the fare increase immediately. I think that the HRT staff really do know what they are doing. If each member city would actually consider some of HRT’s suggestions, HRT could make positive changes without paying a consultant to suggest old ideas.

Feds Trying to Take Granby Tower Site … Again

The federal government is trying to take the Granby Tower site again. Last time they talked about this, it delayed the Granby Tower project until it was no longer feasible. The federal government needs to choose a different option. By using the Granby Tower site, the City of Norfolk will be losing out on a potential taxable development sometime in the future. The land will forever be locked away as federal property. The next downside is that the expansion plan calls for closing Bute Street and most of Monticello Ave.

This is not the only option. As I said in my last post about this court projects, they have an option to build a tower in the middle of the current building, saving space and money compared to using the Granby Tower site. Please read Just Say NO to Federal Courthouse Plan.

Just Say NO to Federal Courthouse Plan

Election Thoughts

I think that there should be a law requiring all incumbents to use only accomplishments acquired in the previous term on election-related materials. Additionally, they should only be allowed to use accomplishments that they actually pushed for. In recent weeks, I have noticed that most of the incumbents (not just in Norfolk) seem to use accomplishments that were completed long before the start of the current term. Better yet, some listed few, if any accomplishments, or listed accomplishments that had not yet been actually accomplished. It is tactics like this that deceive voters. It is also tactics like these that make voters vote for new people. Personally, I hope that nobody votes for an incumbent that has been in office for longer than two terms. Take Ms. Hester for example. Not to pick on her, but she has been in office for nearly 14 years. Despite this long running term, she is running on the idea that council has “lost its purpose.” While I definitely do not disagree, I feel the need to point out that when anyone is a member of an organization for 14 years, they become part of that organization. Council has not run off track in the last month or even year. Council has been off track for years. As a whole, Council has spent the past umpteen years pandering to developers while ignoring the needs of the residents of this city. Granted, the new development has not all been bad. Large projects such as Broad Creek and East Beach have been fairly successful. Unfortunately, the in-fill housing practices have not exactly been in the best interest of out neighborhoods. The houses that have been built are usually hideous when compared to the surrounding neighborhoods. My neighborhood is made up mostly of bungalows or other small houses. Most have porches. Few have attached garages. That said, when you build a new house that is noticeably larger than the surrounding houses with no porch and a large, ugly garage taking up half of the front of the house, visitors cringe. Technically, the surrounding property values have gone up due to this new construction. Personally, it makes the surrounding houses worthless to me.

Council’s typical reaction to opposition to an agenda item is to either listen and then vote for it anyway or defer it to a later date in hopes that the opposition can not make that meeting. If opposition continues, it seems to be getting more and more frequent that they have to take out petitions and costly lawsuits to have their voices heard. The City of Norfolk should not be spending money to defend itself against its residents. We need to create comprehensive plans with input from the residents of the city. Then the city needs to actually stick to the plans. These past failings can be attributed to our city leadership. We need new leaders. The current leadership has served its time. If they want to run again after a term of someone else, more power to them. All organizations need a change after awhile.

Anti-Burfoot Website

I was actually going to post about this site yesterday, but did not get a chance. I woke up this morning to read that Councilman Burfoot used the city attorney to sue in court for an order to remove the site. Burfoot claimed that the site was defamatory and that he wanted to sue the author(s) for slander. First, as a public official, Burfoot should know that he would have to sue for libel, not slander. Second, he should know that as a public official and as the plaintiff in a libel case, the burden of proof would be on him to prove four things (generally).

  1. Publication – The plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory remarks were published
  2. Identification – The plaintiff must prove that he/she was reasonably identified in the remarks
  3. Harm – The plaintiff must prove that the remarks are harmful to his/her reputation
  4. Fault – The plaintiff must prove that the defendant is at fault

Councilman Burfoot can easily prove the first three. Without an admission of guilt, however, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to prove a particular person published something online. Additionally, according to the Supreme Court Case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, because he is a public official, he has to prove “actual malice.” In other words, on top of the main four things that he must prove, he also has to prove that the author published information that he knew was false. Good luck with that. All it takes is for the author to claim that he thought it was true and Mr. Burfoot’s case is dismissed.

Back to the actual website. It has been taken down. If you Google “may4thcounts” you can still get most of it through Google’s cached site. Unfortunately for anyone who wants to fact-check, the cached site does not include the images or the supporting documents.  At first glance, however, I don’t see how Mr. Burfoot could sue for anything. The site had news articles,photos, and public documents to support most of his allegations. A couple of things were suspect such as where he claimed that Burfoot had pushed for the MacArthur Center policy or that it has had a negative effect on the mall. Have you been to the mall lately? It seems to have more customers than ever.

Whoever the author of this site is, they appear to have connections somewhere. My guess is that they work for the city somewhere or have a relative who works for the city.  While I hope that they remain anonymous, since the Norfolk City Council would like to ban free speech in its entirety, I also hope that the author will post his website again to a different server. Better yet, I hope he would post a zipped file version of his entire site plus content to an online file sharing site such as http://www.2shared.com. If he does, I hope he posts a link to it here somewhere.

Regardless, good for him/her. Its about time someone stood up to a council member.

Still No (Legal) Radar Detectors for VA

It seems as if the General Assembly has once again voted down the bill to repeal Virginia’s unique ban on radar detectors. Their reasoning? “Speed on the roads of the commonwealth is a major problem,I don’t think we ought to be passing laws that make our roads less safe.” Well, that was Del. Manoli Loupassi’s (R-Richmond) reason. I wonder if that is the same reasoning behind raising the speed limit to 70. If they are, however, trying to make our roads safer, why have they not passed other laws. That might include banning cell phone use while driving. Or making a stiffer penalty for the guy I saw shaving, eating, and trying to read the paper a while back on the interstate. I would have taken a picture, but I felt the irony of crashing while trying to take a picture of a distracted driver would be too great.

Here is my list of activities that I have seen that should be banned while driving:

  • All phone use
  • shaving
  • eating anything that requires two hands or a table
  • any kind of sexual activity
  • reading books, newspapers, reports, etc.
  • photography
  • applying makeup
  • looking at other accidents
  • actually programming your radio
  • watching TV/DVDs
  • Smoking (ban smoking because you can’t just ban dropping it in your crotch)
  • writing
  • searching the internet

Have I touched the tip of the iceberg yet? I won’t claim that I have never done at least one (or five). I will say though, that it is decidedly riskier to attempt one of these actions than it is to simply drive over the speed limit. There are many roads around (especially in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk) that were actually designed for speeds as high as 65 mph, but their speeds are lowered due to residential areas, schools, etc. It is not the speed that causes the accidents, it is the combination of other activities with the speed. The only speed that contributes to accidents is the low speed of slow interstate drivers. They themselves are rarely involved, but the drivers going the speed limit have to pay extra attention (that they may not have due to other activities) to avoid them.

Come on General Assembly. Allow radar detectors. Work on actual problems. I will file this story with the one about Norfolk trying to ban low riding pants awhile back.