Friday, April 10, 2015

EXCLUSIVE: VTA's Future Transit Plans - My Take on VTA's Proposed Changes between 2015 and 2017

Big service changes are coming to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in the next two years. I have heard voices from Brandi Childress, Colleen Valles, and Cody Kraatz, writing on VTA's blog to see what will come next, and I've seen them all online and on social media, which I have sometimes commented. The changes I am hearing comes from service plans for Levi's Stadium, BART's arrival in Santa Clara County, and the expansion of light rail service in Mountain View. Some of the routes will be gone, at least two routes will be combined into one, and several more routes will undergo major frequency changes to headways between buses and/or light rail. This is not to mention that I also got a response from AC Transit a year ago regarding the major changes associated with BART coming to Santa Clara County and possible overnight service from Fremont BART to the new Warm Springs/South Fremont station.

Nearly two years ago, I heard from a VTA bus operator that told me about what will happen to various bus routes when BART opens at both Milpitas and Berryessa stations. As line 181 is currently the only route that operates every day including holidays between downtown San Jose and Fremont BART station, VTA has imposed improved frequency and major route changes to reflect which bus lines would serve Fremont BART station besides line 181.

Meanwhile, AC Transit has yet to make a decision on how bus line 801 will extend from Fremont BART to Warm Springs BART station. AC Transit is unable to extend that route beyond Warm Springs given that Milpitas is within VTA's service area. The closest route that would be accessed is VTA's line 66, which the current line only goes to Dixon Landing Road. One insider did tell me that line 68 (Gilroy to San Jose Dirdon) once served Fremont BART from Gilroy, though line 66 was created in order to relieve bus operators from having to drive long distances, which the original line 68 is about 50 miles long. The current alignment for VTA's service area in Milpitas allows AC Transit line 217 to use the Great Mall/Main Street Transit Center, which also has VTA's light rail station there. However, the last bus for line 217 leaves Great Mall at approximately 10pm and arrives one hour later at Fremont BART station. In comparison, VTA's line 66 does not end their service until around 11:30pm, while the last bus for line 68 leaves downtown SJ for Gilroy at around midnight.

VTA bus drivers that drove lines 180 and 181 are nostalgic about the changes that could affect their driving careers. VTA will need to make a decision on all drivers of whether any of the drivers that transports San Jose-bound riders will be keeping their jobs and moving the drivers to heighten the frequency of both lines 66 and 68 to 15 minutes on weekdays and 20 minutes on weekends and holidays. It still remains unclear of whether AC Transit will recommend to VTA to have a night owl service between Fremont and San Jose, which no service currently exist, according to a VTA representative that told me on social media. My latest review of all the schedules within VTA's system reveals that line 68 is the only route that emulates BART's service hours (but not frequency between buses).

If I were a VTA official or board member, then I would have my voice. The following section goes line-by-line on both bus and light rail routes, so here's what I think of the upcoming changes (for dates, refer to VTA's website), with the following notations based on my experience as a transit rider:

Approved - this means that I do (or strongly do) approve the changes to the specific line. 
Approved with Condition(s) - this means that I do approve the changes to a specific line, but there are conditions or further improvements that the transit agency will possibly need to make.
Questionable Condition(s) - this means that I am OK with the changes, but there are some questions regarding how will the riders get used to the major changes. 
Not Approved - this means that I won't approve that specific line for a reason. One or more reasons may be behind the possibility of riders.

LINE-BY-LINE: PROPOSED BUS AND LIGHT RAIL CHANGES TO VTA'S SYSTEM

Line 10: The change is to decrease the frequency from 15 minutes to 30 minutes on weekdays with the introduction of line 11. Approved with Comdition(s); for San Jose Earthquakes games, the frequency probably should remain at 15 minutes to ensure that soccer fans get to and from Caltrain quickly. 

Line 11: The introduction of this line runs from downtown San Jose at Dirdon Station, going through downtown SJ, up First Street to Julian Street, and running along the Highway 87 corridor to Skyport Drive. Questionable Condition(s); the portion of the trip along Highway 87 is questionable in terms of the alignment of fare structure. If VTA opts to change the line to 111, then the route would remain the same except for that the cost to ride the bus is $4. Normally, most local routes run on streets and some expressways. In the case of the proposed line 11, VTA chose to run along highway 87, which would make the trip more of an express route than a local route.

Line 13: This line will have some major implications with the schedules, putting the last four trips to leave Ohlone-Chynoweth at 47 minutes past each hour. Approved with Condition(s); VTA must inform riders what the purpose of the last four trips are for, such as school bell times at Gunderson High.

Line 14 and Line 17: The two routes will be combined, with the latter extended to weekends and holidays and both routes continue as one another. These two routes are the first buses within southern Santa Clara County (and the second route couplets after lines 48 and 49) to operate on a loop that terminates at St. Louise Hospital. Approved; weekend service is essential for those that needs a ride to the Gilroy outlets with heavy congestion during shopping season.

Line 18: This route will discontinue it's weekend service, possibly due to low ridership in a similar scenario to line 37 (as opposed to higher ridership on weekdays). Approved; the low ridership may be the primary factor to VTA's bus system in Gilroy.

Line 19: One morning trip in each direction on weekdays will be discontinued. Approved with Condition(s); this line may need to serve Christmas Hill Park for riders that do plan to head over there, particularly during Gilroy Garlic Festival events. Inquires with Gilroy Garlic Festival organizers reveal that riders must walk at least six blocks to Chrismas Hill Park, but VTA has yet to respond on that issue.

Line 22 (All-Nighter Network): Extra trips are to be added on Saturdays during early morning and late-night hours. Approved; VTA would expect higher ridership on this popular route.

Line 23: Extra trip would be added on weekends and holidays. Approved; this popular route may be experiencing more increases possibly due to congested traffic near Valley Fair and Santana Row.

Line 32: This line is very interesting - VTA plans to convert this route from a small bus (30 feet) to a regular bus (40 feet) and charging standard fares like most regular lines. The route would change the alignment from Central Expressway to Maude and making the line more straight than the current alignment of going on and off Central Expressway. Approved; this is likely for safety reasons because pedestrians are not typically allowed on Central Expressway.

Line 35: This line will improve the frequency from one hour to 45 minutes on Saturdays, but the last weekday evening trips in both directions will be discontinued. Approved; there were requests on social media for improvements to this line as the user wanted to make an appeal to VTA requesting more frequency than normal.

Line 42: This line will have a slight reduction in services, with the first and last northbound trips axed from the schedule. Approved; it's possible that there's not enough demand.

Line 46: This line is also facing the same fate as line 42, except the fact that one southbound trip will be axed from the schedule. Approved; same reason as line 42.

Line 47: This line will have the southbound last trip and a reduction of stops in the northbound direction on weekdays. Approved with Condition(s); while the weekday trips will possibly not have sufficient demand, it is likely possible that the weekend schedule may need to have some improvements in the future.

Line 48 and Line 49: These two lines will see an improvement during peak hours, but one Sunday/holiday trip on the latter route will be axed. Approved; while the Sunday service may not have sufficient demand on the last line 49 trip, the concern that VTA has may likely be on peak-hour traffic in Los Gatos. It is possible that service may need to increase further in the future, but will remain with the smaller buses than the standard buses.

Line 51: This line will no longer exist. VTA plans to merge this route with line 81 (see that route below). Approved with Condition(s); see line 81 for more information.

Line 55: VTA plans to put newer express trips as Line 55X to provide direct trips to Fremont High School and change the alignment of the express trips to operate on Fair Oaks instead of Maude. Asides from new express trips, the Saturday trip will split into two trips. Approved; VTA apparently has a strategy in their efforts to transport students to Fremont High School, in which the Sunnyvale Unified School District is probably trying to solve. As for the Saturday trips, riders may have more choices in whether to get on the bus earlier or later. Line 55 is likely the first line in the entire VTA system to feature an "X" of which unlike most express routes (100-level routes), the "X" travels on local roads, mimicking the effects of a limited-stop line (300-level routes).

Line 56: This new, peak-hour route will service between Component light rail station and Sunnyvale Caltrain Station. Approved with Condition(s); it is not known whether VTA plans to operate in one direction or in both directions. Parts of the route, however, will replace line 58's current alignment when the changes are in effect.

Line 57: This route will have major improvements to service during peak-hour weekdays and major improvements to Sunday/holiday service. Approved; riders along line 57 won't be confused when headed in the West Valley College direction.

Line 58: This route will have major alignment and frequency improvements that will include a new Saturday service. Santa Clara Transit Center will replace West Valley College as the southern terminus, as VTA felt that there should only be one route that won't confuse riders heading to West Valley College. Approved with Condition(s); it is unknown whether VTA plans to offer Sunday service in the future as developers are possibly building more shopping centers near Alviso south of SR-237 along First Street.

Line 60: This route will see a major improvement to Sunday service. Approved; as the route serves both Santana Row and Valley Fair due to possible congestion.

Line 61 and Line 62: Those two routes will see frequency improvements on both sides, but a reduction of service on the former during weekdays. Approved; line 61 apparently does not have as many riders as line 62 does on a typical weekday.

Line 66 and Line 68: These two routes will see improvements from 30 minutes to 20-minute headways on weekends and holidays. Approved with condition(s); see also explanation in the picture.

Line 70: Look for improved frequency on Saturday mornings as one trip will split into two trips, giving more choices for riders. Approved; looks like there are increased ridership on that line.

Line 72: This line adds one more trip in each direction on weekday mornings and one more northbound Sunday trip. Approved; it looks like there are more added riders on line 72 because of the added congestion near downtown San Jose.

Line 81: This line will be extended to add stops from Vallco Shopping Center to Moffett Field as a result of the combination with line 51. Approved; apparently, the combination of line 51 and line 81 to provide one continuous route is a strategy by VTA to ensure more ridership.

Line 82: This line is to provide more Sunday service, starting one hour earlier and ending one hour later than the current operating times. Approved; VTA may anticipate a slight increase in ridership.

Line 89: This line will run all-day on weekdays with the introduction of midday service. Approved; apparently, this is a strategy for long-term service that VTA wanted to see as Palo Alto residents and workers near various companies want to see between peak hours.

Line 101, Line 102, and Line 103: VTA plans to take a test run to see if riders appreciate the route taking students to Stanford University. In addition, the latter two lines will see an increase in service. Approved with condition(s); it is unknown how many riders near South San Jose are Stanford students, as VTA's concern is more congestive commute on SR 85 and I-280.

Line 120 and Line 140: VTA plans to reroute these lines to include the new Warm Springs BART station. The former line will have a reduction of stops to terminate at Lockheed Martin, while the latter route will be realigned to serve the Great Mall/Main Street BART station. Approved; it looks like the realignment is meant for more customers who are looking for more trips to serve any BART stations.

Line 168: More peak-hour commute trips in each direction will be added. Approved; VTA is concerned with increased commute on 101 between San Martin and south San Jose. The Mercury News reported that southern Santa Clara County has experienced the most increase among all Bay Area freeways, which is a 37% jump. Continued problems along the corridor will likely see line 168 even more increases in service and traffic increases through Morgan Hill city streets.

Line 180: This route will terminate at Warm Springs BART station instead of continuing to Fremont, along with the reduction of service and frequency. Approved; the latter portion of line 180 is replaced with line 140, which will continue from Warm Springs. Line 180 will only serve people getting between the Warm Springs BART station and the Great Mall/Main Street light rail station. Apparently, VTA wants to encourage riders that takes BART to use this route.

Line 181: More frequency increases on both weekdays and Sunday service are expected. Midday trips will be aligned with both morning and evening commutes in both directions on weekdays. Sunday service will be improved and aligned with Saturday service in terms of headways, as ridership continues to increase. Approved; VTA noted that ridership for both weekday and weekend service has gone way up and is trying to solve the problem with huge increases to this popular express route. VTA also noted that the increases to weekday ridership has been partially attributed to San Jose State University students who uses this route to get to or near the BART station.

Line 182: The alignment change will have this line to remain on Santa Teresa Blvd, with a stop at Bernal Road. Approved; it looks like VTA's strategy is to reduce stress from making too many turns on side roads.

Line 323: This route will see increased service on both weekdays and weekends. Approved; VTA is trying to address overcrowding problems on many line 23 trips along the corridor during the early-morning, post-evening, and weekend commutes. Both Valley Fair and Santana Row are apparently attracting more ridership. Their strategy is to prevent total gridlock on line 23 trips.

Line 328: More frequency during commute times to be added. Approved; looks like VTA may anticipate more riders.

Line 354: This is a new peak-hour line that will go from De Anza College to Lockheed Martin via Sunnyvale Caltrain station. Approved; this may be the latest limited line to be introduced by VTA. It is likely that this route may run in both directions, though it remains unclear how frequent the line will run.

Line 522: This route calls for a major overhaul and renames this line to BRT 522. The plan is to have hybrid articulated buses that would run anywhere from 10-15 minute headways on weekdays and 15-20 minute headways on weekends and holidays. The major overhaul also includes huge increases to service. Ticket vending machines will be positioned along the area. Questionable condition(s); the way that VTA sets up this service could be a concern for their budget. While the service could remain the same, it would be better if VTA runs the BRT to mimic the headways that BART runs their service in order for VTA to manage their budget.

Line 901 (Santa Teresa - Alum Rock light rail line): One early morning trip will start at Baypointe. Approved; VTA does not anticipate huge improvements until BART to Silicon Valley is completed.

Line 902 (Winchester - Mountain View light rail line): One more southbound trip is to be added on weekdays and weekends. Approved; although VTA will have the second track ready for service, major changes won't occur until BART to Silicon Valley has been completed. This has been under discussion by VTA, in which some riders want the headways changed from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. However, the change that VTA will do is related to the alignment of service with additional trips anticipated between Alum Rock and Mountain View. The resulting end product when BART is in service will result in the southbound termination to end at Almaden instead of Winchester, and then increase service, resulting in two light rail lines that are due to increase along SR 87 corridor, leaving line 901 to upgrade to all-day Express trains in both directions between Ohlone-Chynoweth and Convention Center. It remains unclear of whether the independent Winchester - St. James line will be taking the "line 902" name and/or having the Almaden - Mountain View line taking the "line 900" name. It is likely that the Alum Rock - Mountain View line will be taking the "line 903" name, though.


Original Work: Kyle Chak
E-mail: chak595301@gmail.com
Twitter: @KyleSChak
#OnlyOnKyle

Saturday, March 28, 2015

The Larger Picture: Bay Area Transit Agencies to 18 Years Old?

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has been progressing in their projects and game plans as I heard from VTA spokesperson, Brandi Childress. She and other VTA spokespeople have heard about what is going to happen in terms of age youth adjustments. More and more transit agencies around the Bay Area are changing their fare structure in the Youth category. That one is true for one thing. But only in my blog updates what is going on since I first talked about accurate fare information reflected on 511's website in the Bay Area, managed by the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

BART: WHERE ARE THE FARES IN THE BOOKLET? ANY PROOF?

Santa Clara County supervisor Dave Cortese, who now oversees all the transit activities in the nine-county Bay Area region, led the way in finding out why BART has never published accurate fares for the youths, senior, and disabled despite the 62.5% discount and reflected on 511's website, leaving me and other riders to figuring out the actual fares myself. However, the lone holdup is at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) where I discussed about a problem that I've discovered when I was trying to sample my next trip as part of putting both BART and the MTC under my microscope. BART has still not changed their booklet to include accurate information on reduced fares for qualifying people. Neither the MTC nor BART have put up a game plan of how the accurate fare information for qualifying people riding BART will reflect the information posted on 511's website. Tony Kovaleski's investigative report in 2012, as stated in my previous blog, said that VTA had problems in many areas that caused VTA to lose more than a million dollars each year due to fare evasion, but that report is only a small portion of what is to come in a bigger picture that I'm about to describe about fare structures among all Bay Area transit agencies.

BART has been quiet about the issues of accurate fare information that is conflicting for adults and discounted riders, combining with the inability for riders to go online to BART's website and file a complaint of more than 1000 words. Those two in combination may have been forcing users to either e-mail BART directly or voice their concerns. It is not known how many riders have switched from riding BART to driving as a result. My most recent check of booklets provided by BART still questions me of why fare information for the youths, senior, and disabled were still not in the booklet. The fare information for qualifying people is a critical tool in figuring out the actual fares on many transit agencies including BART, VTA, AC Transit, SamTrans, and Caltrain.

At the opening of the Oakland International Airport line running from the Colosseum station to the airport, I asked a BART representative regarding the fares for the youth, senior, and disabled - particularly the fares between the ages of 13 to 17 years old. I have learned that there has been an ongoing debate on that matter among BART officials behind closed doors at BART headquarters in Oakland. It is unclear to me of whether there has been any results from the meeting on whether to implement the plan to extend the youth fare to 18 years old.

CHANGE OF YOUTH FARES AT TRANSIT AGENCIES

BART is not the only transit agency to attempt aligning youth fare, despite the serious problem with publishing accurate fare information in all categories in their booklets. Ongoing discussions commenced among several transit agencies, so I looked up all transit agencies that uses the Clipper card and those that will have Clipper card capabilities to confirm that the change is happening. The results were not surprising to me when I read the individual transit agencies' website.

Both Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit has been relatively 5 to 18 years old ever since I first looked up the fare structure online in 2012. San Francisco Bay Ferry has already made the change on November 1, 2014. Fairfield & Suisun Transit (FAST), Valley Intercity Neighborhood Express (VINE) Transit, Solano County Transit (SolTrans), and Vacaville City Coach all have similar youth policies.

At VTA, the Board of Directors took an approach to change the maximum youth age from 17 to 18. That policy was approved and announced on December 12, 2014, and is scheduled to begin doing so in July 2015. Caltrain reacted to VTA's announcement six days later, and started to phase in the adjustments shortly after it's announcement. It is unclear whether SamTrans and AC Transit will have a similar youth fare policy anytime soon. SamTrans and Caltrain are still under my microscope as to why they still never have a mobile website running even after I sent my message to the two agencies.

At Sonoma County Transit's website, it looks like youth fares are treated as the "student" definition, but must possess a valid student ID for a reduced fare. Even with the ID, the fare is only discounted around 10 percent from the full adult fare. It is unclear if Sonoma County Transit does actually have a "Youth" category for riders who are unfamiliar with the system, and whether they have plans to charge youths the same fares as the "student" category as defined in their system.

The four East Bay transit agencies (County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, WHEELS (Livermore-Almador Valley Transit Authority), WestCAT) has varying definitions of the definition of a youth fare category, but does have a unified fare for youth and adults. However, the fare for the senior and disabled remain at 50 percent from the adult fare. What is confusing is what the maximum youth age is, and whether the four transit agencies has any kind of plan to lower the price of a youth fare to the same level at major transit agencies like VTA and SamTrans.

PROMISES FROM TRANSIT AGENCIES?

The change of the youth age from 17 to 18 years old seems to be more of a welcoming sight for Childress at VTA and Cortese as both the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and MTC chairman. However, I have yet to hear from BART's Board of Directors, including BART's general manager Grace Crunican and several other BART spokespersons. 

Even with my last blog in my investigation on why BART never had a fare table for the youth, senior, and disabled in BART's booklet claiming their 62.5 percent discount, it was impossible for me to contact BART with more than 1000 characters on BART's comment page. I particularly want to ask BART on why BART chose to put the actual reduced fares only on BART's "Fare Calculator" section of the website instead of publishing the actual fares in BART's three booklets that I reviewed several times. It remains unclear of why the actual fares at BART on 511's website is still not reflected on the actual fares via BART's website. But still, Cortese promises an investigation, but I have yet to hear from him on the status of the investigation.

Childress, on the other hand, does promise some results from information collected by fare paying customers for the youth when VTA kicks in the change in the youth fare policy so that VTA will know how many of the riders are actually youths. Would Cortese ever agree with that? Time will tell...

Original Work: Kyle Chak
E-mail: chak595301@gmail.com
Twitter: @KyleSChak 

Saturday, March 14, 2015

CBC's Marketplace: My Take on Some of my Best Episodes Watched

Vacationers like me and Canadian viewers love to know what is definitely wrong with someone trying to rip them off. So the duo of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) television show called Marketplace has anyone's back. The show to me is described as Canadian's consumer investigative show. In this blog, I give my take about two more episodes that caught my eye, as well as my short take on why Marketplace is my favorite show. The two episodes referenced below is something that I want to talk about.

FIGHTING FOR FIDO

Some of the episodes tackle issues that one from another area that also tacked the same issue in the United States. Fighting for Fido is one of the shows that showed how animals got sick by eating treats from a Canadian perspective. San Francisco Bay Area is the first and original place where a dog's owner that resides in Morgan Hill, California got sick from eating jerky treats made in China in 2012, as reported by KNTV television. I almost felt horrified of hearing some serious sickness from pets in Canada and the United States. It nearly mimicked the same story that aired on KNTV by reporter Vicky Nguyen in terms of subject matter, though I thought that the perspective is not the same because of the way the word gets out to people. Many Americans and Canadians who either tuned in or saw the story online probably knew the story on a Morgan Hill family have eventually spread nationwide and eventually into Canada. (Morgan Hill is about 10 miles, or 16 kilometers, from the capital of Santa Clara County, San Jose.) So far, no health officials can confirm the ingredient in question as reported. And to me, figuring out why there is nothing new about sickening pets is scarce. Therefore, the mystery behind it all still remains.

PRICE COMPARISON TODAY?

One other example that I wanted to bring up is shopping comparison between the United States and Canada in the episode called Price Wars. The episode was on Tom Harrington shopping in Toronto and Erica Johnson shopping about 20 miles south of the U.S.-Canadian boarder in Bellingham, Washington. That part of the story caught my attention, as I do look at items from the three stores mentioned in the segment - Target, Walmart, and Home Depot. While Target may have shuttered its operations in Canada, I focused on prices on brand-name products. The question in particular is how the prices between the U.S. and Canada fare long after Harrington and Johnson aired their story on price comparisons. The only store not mentioned in the video was Costco, a Washington state-based company with operations throughout Canada, including a store I saw in Richmond, British Columbia during my June 2014 vacation.

I decided to shop around for any price comparison at Home Depot and Walmart, using my Ibotta app at all times while in the stores. Instead of Bellingham, where Erica Johnson shopped at, I replaced them with Walmart stores Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and a Home Depot store in Pleasanton (city in eastern Alameda County). 

At Walmart stores in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, I found that a Great Value Rainbow Sherbet is $2.97, and a Great Value Frozen Orange Juice is $1.53. If you opt for a Great Value Premium Instant Coffee, the price is $4.48. If you opt for some Great Value Shredded Hash Browns, it will cost you $2. 

At a Home Depot in Pleasanton, I wanted to look at toilets, of which all of them are American Standard. Three types of toilets appeared, all with a 10 rating. What does a 10 represent? The answer is simple - a 10 represents that the toilet performs best, while a 1 performs the worst. About five years ago, when I bought an American Standard Champion 4 toilet, the test revealed a 10 because of the need to not clog often, and the improved performance convinced me to buy that toilet. 

For the price, American Standard has three choices between variations of the Cadet 3, the Champion 4 Max, and the newly introduced Optum VorMax (toilet that is designed to clean the entire bowl). The Cadet 3 cost $188, and $10 less for both the dual-flush and the 10" rough-in variations. If users want the Optum VorMax, you must shell out $288, while the Champion 4 Max toilet goes for $219 (normally $238).

Both Johnson and Harrington have yet to compare prices at Costco stores. Personally, I wish that both Johnson and Harrington would compare and shop there. I heard that while the prices may be in huge bulks, I believe it may be worth the trip to try it out. 

WHY MARKETPLACE?

So why is Marketplace is considered my favorite Canadian television show? The main reason to me has something to do with not only personality, but how fun and entertaining the duo really are. Out of a scale between 1 (the least entertaining) to 10 (the most entertaining), I gave my overall rating of a 9. In some of the shows like "Fighting for Fido," "Canada's Restaurant Secrets," "Price Wars," and "The Dirt on Hotels," (the latter including the sequel) those three shows are very entertaining in one way - they alert consumers on things that may inconvenience customers, sometimes on a wide scale. 

The next time that I'm back in Vancouver on vacation, I think Harrington and Johnson would want me to watch more of Marketplace - they're the ones that give viewers and vacationers from outside of Canada great advice on things to look out for. While I may not be able to watch Marketplace all the time in the United States (due to some restrictions), I do look forward to hearing about anything that may inconvenience all of us, both in Canada & the United States. 

While the Vancouver metro area is the first-ever Canadian metropolitan area that I've ever visited, I do look forward to seeing more of Canada the next time I do come back to Canada for my vacation from Santa Clara County. Perhaps I should discuss my experience in Canadian hotels next time, tuning in to Tom Harrington and Erica Johnson in CBC's Marketplace. 

EDITOR'S NOTE: This blog is written in American English as the blog originates from Santa Clara County, California. Units  in this blog are in imperial units instead of metric units (e.g. 65 MPH is ~105kmh, 10 miles is ~16km). No pictures or videos are embedded in this blog due to restrictions, as all copyrights related herein, if any, belong to their respective owners. The author does his best of respecting the rules of writing blogs when possible. The author of this blog does not have control over external links. Any infringement of this blog will be subject to action. The author reserves the right to revise the blog, including upon request. Any of my blogs, including this blog, is subject to removal at any time, including upon request.

Original Work: Kyle Chak
E-mail: chak595301@gmail.com
Twitter: @KyleSChak

Friday, March 6, 2015

Canada's Restaurant Secrets Follow-Up: Comparison to California's Eating Ordinance?

If I have watched CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) television show called "Marketplace" on a segment called "Canada's Restaurant Secrets," viewers in Canada have their hands full of what what was really inside Canada's restaurants and fast food chains. Tom Harrington and Erica Johnson compiled thousands of inspection reports to show viewers the results. 

After I viewed the video, the problem on eating out is that Canadian restaurant chains have no such requirement for restaurants in Canada to post inspection results outside their windows. Out of all the restaurants in Canada that post inspection results outside the windows, only Toronto has this kind of distinction. In comparison, in Santa Clara and Alameda (pronounced AL-LA-ME-DA) Counties in California, restaurants are required to post inspection results outside their windows. Most of Canada like Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Montreal, and Edmonton currently have no such desire to post their health scorecard outside their restaurants. Many restaurants in Santa Clara and Alameda counties have restaurant inspection cards labeled in three colors: green for "Pass," yellow for "Conditional Pass," and red for "Fail." San Francisco, however, opts for a numerical score card. 

When I compared reports out of "Marketplace" to reports in the Bay Area, many local leaders were taking action. For instance, Santa Clara county supervisors led by Dave Cortese (pronounced CORE-TEH-ZEE) passed an ordinance requiring restaurants to post inspection cards outside their windows at restaurant entrances. On the sad side, Tom Harrington and Erica Johnson could have compared the use of color-coded signs in Toronto to signs posted throughout Santa Clara and Alameda counties. 

Would Johnson and Harrington ever fly out to the San Francisco Bay Area from Canada to see the inspection signs for themselves? Or would Johnson and Harrington ask Santa Clara and Alameda County health officials to fly up to Toronto and convince Canadian health officials to have color cards? Let's hear from anyone... 

Original Work: Kyle Chak
E-mail: chak595301@gmail.com
Twitter: @KyleSChak

Saturday, February 21, 2015

The Homeless in Santa Clara County: No More Room for Housing?

Santa Clara County residents may have heard a lot on the homeless. Every day on the streets of Santa Clara County, I have seen a ton of people having a cart full of sleeping material. Day after day, and night after night, the number of people being homeless in Santa Clara County have increased. So could there be any action by the county to deal with the sharp increase in the number of homeless?  In this blog, I give my short take on the current state of the homeless population in Santa Clara County.

The center of the big bulk of the homeless population centers in the 10th largest city in the United States, San Jose. Homeless encampments are still growing, sometimes scattered around the Silicon Valley. Downtown San Jose is one of the places that I've seen a handful of homeless population both on the streets and under bridges and over crossings. No one have seemed to notice, and no one is checking. Not even once that the city of San Jose have checked for anyone sleeping under the bridges. 

Santa Clara County supervisor Dave Cortese wants to do something about the growing number of homeless people. He does promise that the people living on the streets will find someplace to live. In terms of the housing market, there isn't much space that could be reserved for the homeless. I never heard from people whether there is any moves by Santa Clara County or the city of San Jose to place homeless people in newly-built homes. 

The Community Homeless Alliance Ministry (CHAM) is also heavily involved, led by Pastor Scott Wagers. Wagers spoke many times on the issues of the homeless. When I took pictures of the scene all over San Jose, Wagers saw the extent of where the homeless may be living. Many examples that I've provided in the photos show the places where the homeless could be. News reports that I've viewed online and on television tells the facts on the large clusters of the homeless population centered near "the Jungle," which is defined as a man-made district located on the intersections of Story and Senter Roads, across from Happy Hallow Park & Zoo next to the Coyote Creek. That encampment has been since quarried off by San Jose Police. But shortly after the Jungle has been dismantled, another large encampment appeared at the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. 

As the housing continues to grow, there is very little space and time for Santa Clara County and the cities and towns within the county to come up with a plan to get all the homeless off the streets and into the homes, something that I believe is unhappy with Supervisor Cortese or Pastor Wagers. As I did look everywhere, the only possible way that could help put homeless into homes is to hire a landlord. But the main question remains a mystery to whether the landlord hired by the county or cities involved will dedicate his/her time to identify a place that will house many of the homeless. This is something that no landlords have ever done before. 

The biggest question remains to be seen in regards to the future of the housing for the homeless. Will Santa Clara County and their cities work on a plan? Who knows what is next... 

BONUS: The following pictures were taken not far from San Jose State University. The pictures contains images that shows homeless sleeping out on the streets of downtown San Jose.



 This blog is part of my three-part sequential blog. Click here for the next one.