Transcript PRESERVING THE AMERICAN DREAM RECOVERING FROM SMART GROWTH SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA THOMAS A.

PRESERVING THE AMERICAN DREAM
RECOVERING FROM SMART GROWTH
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
THOMAS A. RUBIN
A SHORT HISTORY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BAY AREA TRANSIT:
IS VALLEY TRANSIT THE WORST
TRANSIT AGENCY IN THE U.S.?
November 10, 2007
Muni Metro Central Subway –
Chinatown Extension
• Phase II Extension of Third Street Light
Rail – which, at $557.9 million for 5.4
miles, set the FTA record for lowest
percentage of new riders – .9%
• The Extension now projected at $1,411
million for 1.7 miles – $830/mile
(Located in Congressional District of the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives)
Project Background –
Approved CEQA Project
BART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara
• 16.1-mile extension
• 6 stations (plus 1
future)
• 2 at-grade
• 3 subway
• 1 aerial
• 1 optional at-grade
• Maintenance facility in
San Jose/Santa Clara
• 6 minute headways
Berryessa Extension Project Alternative
The Berryessa
Alternative is the
project being
evaluated in
the federal New
Starts funding
process.
A Bit of History of this Project I
• In spirit, can be traced back decades
• 1998 San Jose Mayoral election – Ron
Gonzales made it the highlight of his
successful campaign
• In November 2000, VTA put sales tax for
BART extension on ballot – won with
70+%
• Even with incredibly booming economy,
insufficient funding to build and operate –
and financial situation is now much worse
A Bit of History of this Project II
• In its 1998 Regional Transportation Plan, MTC
modeled the cost per new rider for this then $5+
billion dollar capital project at $100 per new rider
– that’s $200 per day, $1,000 per week, and
$52,000 per year or each passenger.
• When VTA did its modeling, it got it down to
“only” $22/new rider – by assuming that
downtown SJ would grow to about 80% of
downtown San Francisco, adding 340,000
home-to-work trips, >10% on BART, most of the
rest – you guessed it – added to the roads
(about 14 freeway lanes worth, under very
conservative assumptions).
A Bit of History of This Project III
• One of the keys to understanding South
Bay transportation is understanding that
the Central Business District is not a major
transportation destination – this is one of
the best examples of “everyone going from
everywhere to everywhere” travel in the
U.S.
• Then factor in geographic limitations – the
Bay and mountains
• … and then add “smart growth” and …
A Bit of History of This Project IV
• You wind up with a rather difficult
transportation situation, often made worse
by the, “We’re, Silicon Valley, the place
that is coming up with the ideas that are
moving the world, and we have the ability
to solve all the world’s problems by
developing plans to make good things
happen and then throwing money at them
with both hands,” attitude.
A Bit of History of This Project V
• Santa Clara County has always favored a, umm,
“innovative solution” approach, to transportation
problem solving:
– Example 1: Propane-fueled buses
– Example 2: Self-designed bus wheelchair lifts
• Marty Wachs, "Ethics and Advocacy in
Forecasting for Public Policy," Business And
Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1 & 2
(Spring/Summer, 1990) pp. 141-157.
A Bit of History of This Project VI
• The compensation and benefits practices
of Santa Clara County governmental units
have led to its unofficial nickname in
California governmental circles of “Santa
Claus County:”
– PERS, with VTA paying the “employee”
contribution, and OASDI
– Generally, highest or second highest operator
hourly wage in U.S.
A Bit of History of This Project VII
• History of Valley Transit:
– 1973 – Santa Clara County Transit District
takes over three failing private bus concerns
– Succession of one-half cent sales taxes for
transit and roads
– 1995 – Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) formed to replace SCCTD,
also to take over as County Congestion
Management Agency
Norman Mineta
• Mayor of San Jose, 1971-75 – Father of Santa
Clara County “smart growth” by creating
development free areas in East and South San
Jose
• U.S. Congressman, 1975-95:
– Chair, Public Works and Transportation Committee
– As key member of this Committee, pushed through
requirement that UMTA execute agreement funding
first light rail line – one of the key actions that led to
current Federal process of “earmarking” all “new
starts” grants.
• Secretary of Transportation, 2001-07
A Bit of History of this Project VIII
• The Santa Clara County Light Rail System
– the answer to mobility needs (but, what
again, is the question?)
• VTA determined to keep designing BART
to San Jose, spending hundreds of
millions of dollars – even through there is
absolutely no guarantee of the funding to
build it – while the rest of the transit
system goes downhill
A Bit of History of This Project IX
• Approval of First Line – basically NorthSouth through CBD – took years to get
Federal funding because of poor
performance
• Opened in stages, beginning in 1987,
because of environmental clearance
challenge, which required redo of EIS/EIR
that delayed Southern leg – which was/is
primarily residential
A Bit of History of This Project X
• VTA, led by the former Mayor, kept
pushing for approval of the entire project –
and getting nowhere
• Finally, there was a meeting in DC where
the Secretary of Transportation – Norm
Mineta – told VTA to break it into
somewhat more manageable pieces,
which is why the first leg is now under
study
A Bit of History of This Project XI
• After the “dot.com” collapse, sales tax
collections collapsed along with the local
economy – instead of 5+% annual
increase, real decreases of >15%
• VTA response was to increase base fare
59%, monthly passes 86%, and day
passes 139%, from 1998-2005, and cut
service by 20% – while continuing to take
the newly enacted sales tax funds for rail
system expansion
• VTA ridership fell 31% from 2001 to 2006
Current VTA System
• Bus – ~82 routes, ~550 buses, ~ 100,000
daily unlinked passenger trips (UPT)
• Light Rail – 42.2 miles of track, two main
lines and a shuttle, 100 vehicles, 62
stations, ~26,000 daily UPT
• Joint Ventures – ACE, Caltrain, Capital
Corridor commuter rail
• Cooperative inter-county bus service w/AC
Transit, Santa Cruz, and Monterey-Salinas
Performance Measures I
• Let’s see how VTA light rail and bus
operating statistics compare to the FTA
“Top 50” transit operators – 19 light rail
operators and the 20 largest of the 46 bus
operators (2005 Reporting Year)
Performance Measures II
• Metrics:
– Productivity – Average Passenger Load
– Cost Efficiency – Cost and Subsidy per
Revenue Vehicle Hour
– Cost Efficiency – Farebox Recovery Ratio
– Cost Effectiveness – Subsidy per Passenger
and per Passenger-Mile
FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19)
Average Passenger Load
40
39.7
35
SCVTA has the third-lowest Average Passenger Load of the nineteen.
34.7
33.1
31.7
30
27.9
25
26.8
26.6
26.5
25.3
24.8
23.6
23.3
21.9
19.2
20
19.2
18.2
17.7
15.9
15
13.1
12.7
9.8
10
5
Agency
RT
KC D
-D
OT
UT
A
Tr
i-M
et
SD
TI
W
Bi
ei
gh
-S
t
te
d
Av
e.
DA
RT
NJ
Si
TC
m
pl
e
Av
e.
M
UN
I
M
-M
TA
SE
PT
A
G
CR
TA
Sa
cR
T
PA
T
SC
VT
A
M
LA T
-M
TA
M
TA
-H
C
M
BT
A
0
FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19)
Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour
$450
$404 SCVTA has fourth highest cost and fourth highest subsidy.
$400
$360
$350
$350
$324
$287 $286
$300
$245 $243 $241
$250
$200
$229
$216 $207 $206
$198
$188
$165 $163
$136 $130
$125
$150
$89
$100
$50
UT
A
SD
TI
RT
D
A
T
SE
PT
M
Av
e.
G
CR
TA
W
Sa
ei
gh cR
T
te
d
Av
e.
M
UN
I
M
BT
A
Tr
i-M
et
pl
e
Bi
-S
t
Si
m
M
-M
T
LA A
-M
TA
NJ
TC
SC
VT
A
DA
RT
PA
T
M
TA
-H
KC C
-D
OT
$0
Agency
Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Farebox Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour
FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19)
Farebox Recovery Ratio
60%
53.9%
50%
47.2%
42.4%
40%
34.4%
32.2%31.3%
30.5%
30%
26.0%25.7%
24.5%
21.4%21.2%
17.5%
15.8%15.5%14.4%
13.9%13.1%
12.2%12.2%
10.2%
20%
10%
Agency
PA
T
G
CR
TA
M
TA
-H
C
M
-M
TA
SC
VT
A
DA
R
KC T
-D
OT
RT
D
W
Bi
ei
gh
-S
t
te
d
Av
Si
m
e.
pl
e
Av
e.
M
UN
I
Sa
cR
T
NJ
T
LA C
-M
TA
UT
A
SE
PT
A
T
Tr
i-M
et
M
SD
TI
M
BT
A
0%
FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19)
Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile
$1.60
KC-DOT
(Subsidy/Passenger
Mile = $4.89)
La-MTA's performance is well below average.
$1.40
Subsidy/Passenger Mile
SCVTA
$1.20
PAT
M-MTA
$1.00
NJTC
$0.80
Simple Ave.
MUNI
SEPTA
$0.60
Weighted Ave.
MTA-HC
$0.40
RTD
SacRT
GCRTA
DART
LA-MTA
MBTA
$0.20
Tri-Met
MT
UTA
Bi-St
SDTI
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Subsidy/Passenger
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
FTA "TOP 20" + VTA MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005
Average Passenger Load
20
19.3
LA-MTA is second highest of the twenty. (NYC DOT Passenger Mile data appears to be very incorrect.)
18
16
14
12
15.3
14.3
13.9 13.6
13.0
12.6
12.0 11.8 11.7
11.4 11.3
10.6 10.5 10.2
9.5
10
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.0
8.4
8.1
8
6
4
2.4
2
Agency
RT
D
PA
T
M
BT
A
DA
R
SC T
V
NY T A
CD
O
T
DT
M
AC
M
Tr T
i-M
et
NY
C
LA T
-M
T
M A
-M
TA
SE
PT
KC A
-D
OT
W
N
ei
gh JT
C
te
d
Av
e.
O
CT
A
W
M
AT
A
C
M TA
TA
Si
m -HC
pl
e
Av
M e.
AR
TA
0
FTA "TOP 20" + VTA MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005
Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour
$225
VTA has the second-highest cost per hour and the second-highest subsidy per hour.
$201
$200
$175
$152
$150
$140
$125
$132 $128
$123 $121 $119
$116
$113 $113 $110
$107 $107 $104
$100
$100 $98 $98 $95 $95
$92 $92 $91
$75
$50
$25
CT
A
M
BT
A
M
DT
DA
M RT
TA
-H
M C
AR
TA
RT
D
M
T
O
AT
A
NJ
TC
W
M
ei
gh -MT
A
te
Si d A
m
pl ve.
e
Av
SE e.
PT
A
PA
T
CT
Tr A
i-M
LA et
-M
TA
AC
M
W
NY
CD
O
SC T
VT
A
NY
KC CT
-D
OT
$0
Agency
Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Fare Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour
FTA "TOP 20" + VTA BUS OPERATORS 2005
Farebox Recovery Ratio
45% 42.4%
39.9%
40%
35%
30%
34.2%34.1%
VTA is second lowest.
32.8%
31.2% 30.6%
30.0%29.8%
28.5%28.1%
25%
26.7%
24.2% 23.8%23.5%
22.0%
20.5%20.5%
20%
18.9%18.7%
17.9%
14.0%
15%
12.7%
10%
5%
Agency
A
Tr C
i-M
e
M
TA t
-H
SC C
VT
A
DA
RT
Av
e
M .
AT
A
O
CT
A
PA
T
M
BT
KC A
-D
OT
RT
D
W
T
DT
Si
m
pl
e
M
M
NY
CT
NJ
TC
CT
SE A
P
NY T A
W
C
ei
gh DO
T
te
d
Av
M e.
AR
T
LA A
-M
T
M A
-M
TA
0%
FTA "TOP 20" BUS OPERATORS 2005
Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile
$1.00
NYCDOT (Invalid
Passenger Mile data)
AC
$0.90
Subsidy/Passenger Mile
Simple Ave.
MBTA
$0.80
WMATA
$0.70
PAT
DART
Tri-Met
Weighted Ave.
NYCT
$0.50
OCTA
$0.40
$0.30
$1.00
KC-DOT
CTA
$0.60
SEPTA
MARTA
$1.50
$1.75
MDT
RTD
M-MTA
LA-MTA
$1.25
MT
MTA-HC
NJTC
$2.00
$2.25
$2.50
$2.75
Subsidy/Passenger
$3.00
$3.25
$3.50
$3.75
$4.00
FTA "TOP 20" + VTA BUS OPERATORS 2005
Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile
Subsidy/Passenger Mile
$1.30
SCVTA
$1.10
NYCDOT (Invalid
Passenger Mile data)
$0.90
AC
Simple Ave.
MBTA
WMATA
Tri-Met
$0.70
$0.50
PAT DART
CTA
MTMDT
Weighted Ave.
NYCT SEPTA
RTD
MARTA
OCTA
M-MTA
MTA-HC
LA-MTA
KC-DOT
NJTC
$0.30
$1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75 $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $3.00 $3.25 $3.50 $3.75 $4.00 $4.25 $4.50 $4.75 $5.00 $5.25 $5.50 $5.75 $6.00
Subsidy/Passenger
Overall Operational Assessment
• Average Passenger Load – LR Third
Lowest, Bus Lowest
• Cost/Subsidy per Vehicle Revenue Mile –
LR Fourth Highest, Bus Second Highest
• Farebox Recovery Ratio – LR Third
Lowest, Bus Second Lowest
• Subsidy/Passenger & Passenger-Mile –
Highest
Density and Transit System
Modal Selection I
• The great advantage of bus transit is its
relatively low capital cost, which leads to
flexibility – while bus can be used very
effectively in high transit demand
corridors, it is a mode that can be useful in
lower demand areas and lines
• Rail, on the other hand, because of its
high initial capital cost, should only be
considered where there is great density –
not of population, or jobs, but of trips
Density and Transit System
Modal Selection II
• In Santa Clara County, where the density of trips
is so low that the bus system is very arguably
the least productive and cost-effective in the
U.S., the adopted response was to build light rail
– which requires far more trip density to begin to
make any sense
• When that utterly failed, even after redesigning
the bus system in an attempt to force riders to
use it, the adopted response is to build heavy
rail – and to do so largely as subway, its most
expensive form
IS VTA THE WORST TRANSIT
SYSTEM IN THE U.S.?
• Terrible operating statistics, worst of any major
American transit operator
• Persists on proposing – and adopting – ever
successively more ill-logical transit plans
• Persists on continuing to implement such plans,
even when it is totally acknowledged that the
fiscal resources do not exist to do so
• Willing to destroy existing transit system, and the
riders who depend upon it, in pursuit of this
“dream”
So, IS VTA THE WORST TRANSIT
SYSTEM IN THE U.S.?
I don’t know for sure, but if there is a worse
one out there, I hope I never find it.