back to vtaridersunion.org
main page
| Santa Clara VTA | Riders Union |
This is a report of the 30-year transportation plan of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), known as VTP2030 (http://www.vtp2030.org/). This report will give analysis and solutions to the issues facing public transportation in Santa Clara County between 2005 and 2030, based on the draft plan approved by the VTA's Board of Directors in December 2004.
This report was prepared by the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union (SCVTARU), a grassroots-based public transportation advocacy and watchdog group based in Mountain View, CA. (http://www.vtaridersunion.org/) Copies of the report are available at http://www.vtaridersunion.org/papers/moneyfornothing.html or by sending a written request to the following address:
Santa Clara VTA Riders Union
P. O. Box 390069
Mountain View, CA
94039-0069
Alternately, SCVTARU can be contacted by telephone at (408)888-2208.
SCVTARU is not endorsed by the Valley Transportation Authority in any form whatsoever. We currently do not receive any funding from any private or public foundation.
In development of VTP2030, its timing should have been taken out of sequence with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). As the MTC is the San Francisco Bay Area's regional transportation planners and financiers, the final VTP2030 plan must be submitted to the MTC for inclusion in its RTP. This RTP, known as Transportation 2030 (http://www.t2030.org/), features major public transportation and highway projects that, should it meet funding, need, and usage criteria, qualify for state and federal funding.
By beginning the development process earlier than MTC recommendations, it allows the public to plan with a "blank slate" that ensures that every citizen in Santa Clara County gets equal input. Later, VTA staff can develop their own list of projects. Finally, VTA can hold public meetings where the public can comment on its "blank slate" list and VTA staff's list and compare costs between plans on both lists. As a result, the public would have more confidence that their plan is a comprehensive, inclusive effort as opposed to one built around a pre-determined list of projects funding allocations - and that their input is reflected in those projects and funding allocations. This would be a far more logical, more inclusive approach than approving a list of pre-determined projects and their fund allocations in April 2005, then approving the final overall plan in December 2005.
Page 14 of the Draft VTP2030 plan features the mission statement of the Valley Transportation Authority.
"...to provide the public with a safe and efficient countywide transportation system [that] increases access to mobility, reduces congestion, improves the environment, and supports economic development, thereby enhancing the quality of life."
Hence, VTA's job is to provide transportation for the people of Santa Clara County
However, scarcity of funding is referred to throughout the draft VTP2030 plan and is cited as a reason for being unable to fulfill this mission. This has not stopped the VTA, though, from spending staff time and tax dollars promoting, doing training for, and granting subsidies for various projects within VTP2030. Several examples of this are listed below:
Clearly, this indicates that the scarcity of funding VTA claims it cannot fulfill its mission with is simply a hoax. It also represents a violation of public trust, as land use projects are clearly not providing the transportation system needed to sustain Santa Clara County's quality of life.
According to their 2004-2005 Fiscal Year Budget, 65% of VTA's funding comes from local sales taxes approved by County voters. Page 4 of Draft VTP2030 lists the 1996 Measure B 1/2-cent sales tax for a 10-year transit construction project program totalling $1.63 billion, and the 2000 Measure A 1/2-cent sales tax (effective April 2006) for a 30-year, $6 billion transit construction projects program. However, VTP2030 fails to mention the following taxes to fund and operate the county's public transportation infrastructure:
Despite the exporting of local jobs out of state and overseas, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts a 27% growth in population and a 37% growth in jobs by 2030 on page 7. Yet, per a workshop held by the County Supervisors in December 2004, County residents pay 1.25 cents on the dollar for public transportation in Santa Clara County - the highest such taxes in the nation. While these sales taxes have provided the gist of the County's transportation funding and projects, these same sales taxes are seen as a factor in driving small businesses and families out of the County - if not California altogether.
Another factor in small businesses and families leaving the County is increasing automobile gridlock. For a plan that is promoted as having a vision, here is what is predicted by VTA staff in the draft VTP2030 plan:
Sadly, the draft VTP2030 mentions that freeway capacity will grow by only 8% despite the increases in automobile traffic. While the draft VTP2030 report acknowledges on page 11 that adding more freeway capacity induces more automobile gridlock and that public transit travel times need to be competitive with automobile travel times on page 13, VTA staff and management continue to increase automobile gridlock thru added freeway capacity while increasing travel times on public transportation as compared to automobile travel. Examples of additional freeway capacity include:
Over a year later on U.S. 101 in Morgan Hill, reports of gridlock returning to the area appeared in the November 17, 2003 "Mr. Roadshow" column (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/14909) of the San Jose Mercury News. As an example of increasing travel times on public transportation is the June 2004 opening of the Tasman East light rail extension. Comparing bus and light rail schedules between the former 74 bus line and the Tasman East light rail extension / 31 bus line combination, travel times between the Great Mall in Milpitas and Eastridge Mall in San Jose increased by an overall average of five (5) minutes. What used to be a one-seat bus ride between the two areas on the former 74 bus line now requires a transfer at the extension's terminus at Alum Rock to the 31 bus line to Eastridge..
Given that driving between the Great Mall and Eastridge takes about only 20 minutes, it is no wonder why only 4% of Santa Clara County's commuters use public transportation. (http://www.vtaridersunion.org/statistics/pubtrans_county_2002.html) Worse, $273.1 million in state and federal tax dollars (http://www.vta.org/projects/te_cap/project/index.html) were wasted on a project where overall travel time was an average of $54.4 million per minute longer than the faster, single bus line that it replaced. Even a fraction of the $273.1 million for the project would have been better spent providing dedicated bus lanes as well as synchronized signals and signal prioritization along Capitol Avenue and Capitol Expressway between the Great Mall in Milpitas and Eastridge Mall in San Jose. This enhanced, rapid bus service - at most 30 minutes between the two malls - would have been more time-competitive with the personal automobile once time spent on seeking parking was factored in.
The final VTP2030 plan must emphasize cost-effective public transit alternatives to the automobile if it is to handle the 27% population growth projected for Santa Clara County by 2030. Such cost-effective alternatives, if made time-competitive to the automobile, can be effective in removing automobiles from the road, making additional freeway expansion unnecessary. Even with stricter vehicle emissions, the sheer increase of vehicular travel will result in a 129% average increase of airborne particulates on page 144. Such particulates - tiny microscopic specks 1/1000 of a millimeter in diameter - are responsible for heart and respiratory diseases and untimely death. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/21887) As the population of Santa Clara County's elderly and disabled population increases, it is predicted that the County will be amongst the leaders in the nation in deaths due to heart disease and respiratory illnesses per 1,000 people in 2030. In current form, the VTA's "solutions" and "vision" do absolutely nothing to enhance use of public transportation in the county, resulting in even more traffic gridlock, more pollution, and a non-existent quality of life in 2030. With VTA "plans" to increase public transit usage to only 6.9% of the commuting population by 2030, the personal automobile will remain the dominant form of transportation in 2030 just as it does today.
The table on page 84 indicates proposed VTA expenditures for the next 30 years. Out of $8.5 billion due to be spent on projects for VTP2030 in the next 25 years, 80% of that funding will go towards public transit capital projects. Only $28 million will be available for transit operations and management in the next 25 years. Projects for highways and expressways get $766 million and $150 million respectively for the next 25 years.
It is anticipated that half of the $8.5 billion for transportation construction projects will be spent on designing and constructing the San Jose BART extension. However, neither VTA nor supporters of the BART extension have yet to disclose the history of cost overruns on every BART project ever built. Throughout BART's history, every project ended up constructed at double the original cost estimates. The initial BART line from Richmond down to Fremont, constructed as part of the original $792 million bond measure to initiate the BART system, ended up costing nearly $2 billion. (http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/06/Features/bart.html) Even the vaunted BART extension to San Francisco Airport - originally budgeted at nearly $600 million - ended up costing nearly $1.5 billion. (http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2004/07_August/big_fat_lies.htm)
While the San Jose BART extension is being pushed at high priority for stable state and federal funding, VTA's bus and rail system operations will continue to depend on unstable sales tax funding, as indicated on pages 104 and 105. "While VTA has placed bus service on hold until the current financial shortage is resolved...until a new source of additional funding can be secured for operations, VTA will have to work within the existing resources it has for operations." According to VTA's latest ridership studies from the year 2000, 59% of VTA's bus riders make less than $35,000 per year. Many of these bus riders consist of workers in the retail and service sectors of Santa Clara County's economy, while the rest consist of youth in high school or college, seniors, and the disabled. VTA's transit service proposals and funding philosophy in VTP2030 ensure these riders - who depend on public transportation for their mobility - continue to have transit services a generation behind current needs. In other words, in 2030, bus service and connections to regional transportation and destinations will be the same service levels in 2000.
Since 2001, VTA has implemented a scheme of transit fare hikes every fiscal year, to account for inflation. Below is a history of VTA's fare hikes since the agency's inception in 1996:
| History of VTA Fare Hikes - 1996 to present | (percentages rounded to nearest whole number) | |||||||
| Fare Type | FY 1996-1997 | FY 1998-1999 | FY 2000-2001 | FY 2002 | August 2003 | January 2005 | % change | % change |
| (2003-2005) | (1996-2005) | |||||||
| Adult (18-64) | ||||||||
| Local | $1.10 | $1.10 | $1.25 | $1.40 | $1.50 | $1.75 | 14 | 37 |
| Express | $1.75 | $1.75 | $2.00 | $2.25 | $3.00 | $3.50 | 14 | 100 |
| Day pass | $2.20 | $2.50 | $3.00 | $4.00 | $4.50 | $5.25 | 14 | 139 |
| Express Day Pass | $3.50 | $4.00 | $5.00 | $6.00 | $9.00 | $10.50 | 17 | 200 |
| Local Monthly Pass | $33.00 | $35.00 | $39.00 | $45.00 | $52.50 | $61.25 | 17 | 86 |
| Express Monthly Pass | $50.00 | $55.00 | $63.00 | $72.00 | $90.00 | $122.50 | 36 | 145 |
| Local Annual Pass | $429.00 | $495.00 | $577.50 | $674.00 | 17 | 57 | ||
| Express Annual Pass | $693.00 | $792.00 | $990.00 | $1,348.00 | 36 | 95 | ||
| Youth (ages 5-17) | ||||||||
| Local | $0.55 | $0.60 | $0.70 | $0.85 | $1.25 | $1.50 | 20 | 173 |
| Express | $1.25 | $1.50 | 20 | 20 | ||||
| Day pass | $1.10 | $1.40 | $1.75 | $2.50 | $3.75 | $4.50 | 20 | 309 |
| Monthly Local/Express Pass | $16.50 | $19.00 | $22.00 | $27.00 | $30.00 | $49.00 | 64 | 297 |
| Annual Pass | $242.00 | $297.00 | $330.00 | $539.00 | 63 | 128 | ||
| Senior/Disabled (65+) | ||||||||
| Local | $0.35 | $0.35 | $0.40 | $0.45 | $0.75 | $0.75 | 0 | 114 |
| Express | $0.75 | $0.75 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Day pass | $0.70 | $0.80 | $1.00 | $1.25 | $1.75 | $2.25 | 29 | 221 |
| Monthly Local/Express Pass | $6.00 | $8.00 | $9.00 | $11.00 | $17.50 | $26.00 | 49 | 333 |
| Annual Pass | $99.00 | $121.00 | $286.00 | 137 | 289 | |||
The genesis for this philosophy is based on the VTA's Business Review Team report from November 2002. Spearheaded by San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, the report basically recommended that VTA's financial stability be achieved thru higher fares, transit service cuts, and increased marketing of VTA buses and light rail. While the "Business Review Team" claims this strategy will increase farebox revenue to its 20% to 25% as implied on page 15, in execution this strategy contradicts itself - fare box revenue continues to drop and transit ridership continues to drop.
According to VTA's ridership statistics from November 2003, VTA lost about 100,000 transit riders between 2001 and 2003. During that time, Santa Clara County lost about 200,000 jobs. Factor in the U.S. Census Bureau's statistic of only 4% of County commuters using public transit, and only 10,000 transit riders were lost due to the economic downturn between 2001-2003. The loss of the other 90,000 transit riders is easily traced back to VTA's four service reductions resulting in nearly 20% of overall service lost, and three fare hikes resulting in an average 50% increase in public transit fares. In other words, the County has reverted to 1991 in terms of public transit service throughout the county, with 21st century inflated transit fares.
Throughout the third chapter in the draft VTP2030 plan, VTA talks about its partnerships with regional agencies to sustain Santa Clara County's growth and quality of life.
However, there are still issues with land use and transportation in Santa Clara County. For starters, much of the county is spread out as opposed to compact and dense as can be found in cities throughout the northeastern United States. The resulting long travel distances between work, home, education, and entertainment destinations makes public transit very difficult to be effective. High density is key to why New York and London have an average 60% of their commuters use public transit, whereas in the South Bay, the U.S. Census Bureau says only 4% of the commuters use public transit due to the sprawl in the region. Santa Clara County - especially San Jose - is built more like Los Angeles - a city whose growth is based around the automobile since after World War II. This is the opposite of “great cities” like New York and London, which were built for and around public transit since the start of the 20th century.
An example of the county's lack of civic and cultural will to use public transit can be found at the shopping centers and malls in Santa Clara County. Malls such as Eastridge Mall and Oakridge Mall in San Jose do not give directions to bus and light rail stops from within the mall. There are directions for automobile parking but no directions on public transit stops for the malls. Worse, public transit stops for the malls are in remote areas of the malls within or outside their perimeter, and not at an entrance of the mall itself. This is the exact opposite of the Capitola Mall in Capitola in Santa Cruz County, where there are signs within the mall that guide shoppers to the transit center for the mall. The transit center at Capitola Mall is right at the mall's main entrance. Every shopping center and mall in the county should follow the example of the Capitola Mall. It would encourage public transit ridership as an alternative to driving and fighting for parking spaces - particularly during the Christmas shopping season.
In practice, Santa Clara County's transportation and land use policy - from projects to leadership - is a conflict of interest. One such example of this conflict of interest can be found in downtown San Jose. There, parking lots advertising "free parking after 6:00pm weeknights and on weekends" can be found throughout the downtown area. Many such lots can be found within walking distance of VTA light rail along First and Second Streets, where many light rail trains and buses through downtown San Jose are at most 1/4 full on weeknights and on weekends. In addition, some San Jose residents receive coupons in the mail for "free parking in downtown San Jose" in selected parking lots. In other words, the free downtown parking has discouraged all public transit ridership in downtown San Jose.
What makes this situation worse is that many VTA Board members also serve as council members on their cities' Redevelopment Agency. For example, VTA Board members Cindy Chavez (representing downtown San Jose on the City Council) and San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales also meet as board members of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. As the largest such redevelopment agency in California, they use eminent domain to purchase land within city limits for the public good. In addition, they approve projects, such as parking garages, which are "for the public good." As in the downtown free parking garages resulting in empty trains and buses, the decisions Chavez and Gonzales make in terms of land use and public transit contrast and ultimately contradict each other.
On page 178, VTA boldly announces how "traditional definitions of jurisdiction and responsibility should be redefined to identify opportunities for integrating transportation as a component of improving livability in Santa Clara County." However, this poses many issues. First issue is that Santa Clara County's city councils - when acting as the local Redevelopment Agency - are directly accountable to voters. The other issue is the VTA as a land use agency. Currently, voters in the county cannot elect nor recall VTA Board members. Worse, voters cannot run for a seat on the VTA Board. It must be questioned what path of recourse county residents will have when land use and planning decisions are given to officials that were never elected by voters at the ballot box.
The best solution for such conflict of interest issues and lack of accountability is a VTA Board that is directly elected by voters, similar to how BART and AC Transit form their Board of Directors.
One good example of encouraging civic will to use public transportation is by advertising bus routes to popular South Bay events such as the Silicon Valley Football Classic (http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bus/transit2bowl.html). Such advertising can include locations of bus stops at or near the venue, as well as links to bus schedules serving the venue before, during, and after the event. In the case of the Silicon Valley Football Classic, the guide included bus stops within walking distance of Spartan Stadium, and what bus lines served those stops.
The best solution to making VTA financially stable is to abandon the contradictory solutions of the Business Review Team and instead utilize input from all facets of the general public. Transportation experts from the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), combined with input from the general public, should have been utilized to formulate solutions for VTA's financial stability. Solutions to a public transportation agency's financial instability should never be based exclusively on the input of the business community and appointed transportation board members.
All of the flaws within VTP2030 can easily be traced to the lack of accountability at VTA. The reason is easily traced back to the structure of its Board of Directors. The VTA Board consists of 12 members - 5 of which are permanently held by San Jose city councilmembers. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors holds two (2) permanent seats. The other cities in the county share the rest of the seats on a rotating two-year basis.
However, voters in Santa Clara County cannot run for a seat on the VTA Board. Worse, voters cannot elect nor recall VTA Board members at the ballot box. This results in a VTA Board that is non-responsive and not accountable to the general public.
A good solution to this lack of accountability would be to abolish the VTA's Board of Directors. From the rubble, rebuild VTA with Board members directly elected by voters. The new VTA would run similar to the way BART and AC Transit run - with a voter-elected Board of Directors making daily decisions. Board members would consist of one (1) board member from each of the 5 county supervisorial districts, plus two (2) at-large Board members representing the entire county. Voter-elected Board members should come from private residents of the county who have not held seats in public office for a minimum of five (5) years. Since the current VTA is an independent state district, its Board structure can only be changed via an act of the State Legislature, approved by the Governor of California. State Assembly members and Senators must immediately enact laws that make the VTA directly accountable to Santa Clara County residents.
In addition, the new VTA would run as an agency whose sole focus is public transportation. To handle highway construction and maintenance, it is recommended to ressurect the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, whose Board members should have the same Board makeup and voter election process as the new, focused VTA. Land use would be left up to the individual cities, where voters already elect city councilmembers to make land use decisions. Until voters can elect who represents them at the regional transportation level at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), plans for regional control of land use decisions should be placed on hold.
The new VTA has to be more inclusive in transportation planning and implementation. The list of participants in VTA's "Silicon Valley Community Partnerships" on page 175 of the draft VTP2030 plan only lists four organizations VTA works with. Chief amongst those organizations are the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and the Greenbelt Alliance. Missing from this list are taxpayer groups, transit advocacy groups, community groups, and any other organization whose views might be contrary to the VTA's. The current VTA "community" is exclusive and appears hand-picked by political process and philosophy. The tragic result is a 30-year plan that disproportionately addresses transportation needs of a very small minority at the expense of a great majority of county residents. This must change if the county is to remain competitive with other economic regions.
--SCVTARU - January 5, 2005
back to vtaridersunion.org
main page