Almaden Valley Community Association Looks at Valley Transit Planning
Ray Strong ,  AVCA Secretary        Bob Boydston, AVCA President
         
On March 10, Jim Lightbody of the Valley Transit Authority Planning and Programming Department spoke to the Almaden Valley Community Association about the future of our Light Rail System. With elegant diagrams and artists conceptions, he detailed plans to extend Bay Area Rapid Transit from Fremont to San Jose and to double the size of the VTA Light Rail System over roughly the next 20 years. Particularly impressive were drawings of Capital Expressway with a light rail in the middle. The artist’s view showed landscaping, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and somewhat narrower car lanes to accommodate two light rail tracks in the middle.

Mr. Lightbody appeared quite proud of the elaborate and beautiful vision of a light rail half circle from Milpitas through East San Jose (Alum Rock, Evergreen) to join the existing light rail in South San Jose. The circle would have spokes from downtown out to Milpitas, along Santa Clara Street, and along Capital Expressway. He expects the outer half circle to reach from Milpitas to Eastridge within ten years.

The rosy picture took less than twenty minutes to present. Then came the question and answer period, from which a somewhat different picture emerged.

There is a current plan to cut light rail service by 20%. The Tasman extension to Mountain View was completed just in time for the major employers in Mountain View to begin their massive layoffs. Ridership peaked with the economy and is down significantly. Most cuts in service will be accomplished by expanding the time between trains (e.g. from 10 minutes to 15 minutes). However, service on the Almaden Lake spur is in jeopardy. In addition to cuts in service, a base fare increase from $1.40 to $1.50 is planned and fare increases for students, seniors, and others who travel at reduced rates are also on the table.

The Valley Transit Authority handles roughly three to four percent of the commute trips in the region. This means 96-97% of all commute trips use other means of transportation. Of the VTA commute trips, only 20% (down from a peak 25%) involve the light rail. It costs roughly $50,000,000 to construct a mile of light rail. This is just the initial investment. The cost to operate the VTA light rail is less than 12% covered by fares. The other 88% of operating costs are charged to the taxpayers. This 12% coverage by fares can be compared to 16% for Dallas and 25% for a mature and efficient metropolitan area. In other words, in the best expected case, only one-fourth of the operating cost will be covered by fares -- requiring a three-fourths subsidy.

Some concern was expressed at the huge level of investment and operating subsidies compared to the tiny benefit in terms of traffic relief. Mr. Lightbody explained that, while he has been present through all the decision making, the philosophy, strategy, and responsibility for the plan rest with the VTA Board. This board is composed of five representatives of the San Jose City Council, five representatives of the smaller city governments, and two representatives of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Lightbody outlined the reasoning behind the light rail strategy. There is only a limited amount of roadway space in Silicon Valley. The capacity of this roadway system cannot scale to meet the demand of projected population growth, based on automobile traffic. Mass transit is the only way to expand commute capacity in the long term. Therefore we must build the required mass transit infrastructure now in order to accommodate a time in the future when population has expanded beyond automobile roadway capacity, even if we paved the entire valley. The implication is that ridership on mass transit will increase when commuters can no longer reach their destinations because of grid lock.

Your authors have two philosophical questions here: (1) Does the VTA Board come up with this kind of reasoning on its own or does it receive recommendations from its staff and in particular from the VTA Planning and Programming Department? (2) In a country made great and prosperous by its free market, why is it assumed that only a centrally managed transit economy can solve our traffic problems?

The picture of grid locked freeways forcing commuters to ride mass transit brings visions of Los Angeles and Long Island. It’s not a pretty picture, but increased ridership, can make our light rail system more efficient. Mr. Lightbody imagines three car trains, each train car capable of holding 450-500 people. This is the way we reach the level of efficiency at which only a 75% subsidy is required.

Concerned with the nearer term when we add light rail down Capital Avenue to Eastridge, a questioner asked what we could expect as a Level of Service (measured as a grade from A to F) at such intersections as Story and Capital. The answer was, “F.” Asked whether the return could justify the investment (in light rail), Mr. Lightbody replied, “It’s not my money, it’s your money,” indicating that we elected our city and county governments and that they (through the VTA Board) are responsible for these planning decisions.

There is one more critical element that has gone into the thinking of the VTA Board. This is the assumption that a great part of the population increase will occur in Downtown San Jose. It is this assumption that drives the half circle and spokes model. The plan for Silicon Valley involves the construction of high density housing along corridors of planned mass transit. The planners expect 16-20% mass transit ridership from high density housing, as compared with the 3-4% current ridership. One questioner challenged this expectation based on the example of Almaden Lake Village Apartments high density housing on Coleman. The management there states that few of the more than two hundred families living there use light rail. Moreover, Mr. Lightbody indicated that the VTA may have to cut service entirely from the light rail spur that serves this high density housing cluster.

Another of the questions that elicited discussion was, “Why doesn’t the light rail go to the airport?” The answer was that the City of San Jose wanted the line to go up First Street, not through the airport. Mr. Lightbody indicated that the reasoning behind this decision had to do with San Jose’s downtown development plans. Mr. Lightbody said that a planned people mover system to connect the light rail to the airport was now a much lower priority because of the recent passage of Measure A. Meanwhile, the VTA runs a free shuttle bus between the light rail and the airport. There was an unresolved question about whether the shuttle bus runs on weekends.

There was some discussion of planned CalTrain bypass track that would allow travel between San Jose and San Francisco in less than an hour.

There was also discussion of the quality of bus service local to the Almaden Valley. In response to complaints about the reliability of bus service, Mr. Lightbody said that they had some problems a few years ago, but that things had improved greatly. In general the bus system is 95% within five minutes of scheduled time. It was not comforting to this author to see the route 13 bus stalled (with flashers blinking) on Camden Avenue during the next Friday morning rush hour.

The following comments summarize your authors’ understanding of the real picture and our opinion in response to this understanding.

The investment in BART and light rail will take 80% of the Transportation Budget although light rail attracts only 0.4% of the traffic and the effect of extending BART to San Jose is an unknown. Using Metropolitan Transportation Commission, (MTC), figures, Thomas Rubin, a Transportation Consultant, reports that the cost of  carrying one rider, one way, on the new BART extension, will be $100.30.

The removal of the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on Capital Expressway, will produce seven LOS F intersections where there are now two, according to County Roads. These particular lanes are the most heavily used of any of our expressways. The removal of HOV and entry lanes and the narrowing of remaining lanes will make driving more difficult and less safe.

High density housing in the Transit Corridor does not reduce traffic congestion, but it increases it. High density housing residents drive cars. The premise that they will leave their cars home and take light rail does not match experience. Traffic congestion will have to get much worse for residents to make that choice and they will stop making the choice if congestion improves. Mass transit will never reduce traffic congestion -- it depends on much worse traffic congestion to even begin to become efficient.

A reasonable person, looking at the above information, would conclude that neither the light rail extension on Capital Expressway with its increased operating expense nor the $100 per rider cost on BART can be justified. The VTA Board is operating with bad advice.