back to vtaridersunion.org
main page
| Santa Clara VTA | Riders Union |
(submitted to SCVTARU November 20, 2006)
The San Jose Mercury News recently ran a story about increases in light rail ridership that promise to boost weekday averages to 40,000 this month (November 2006). Last month, weekday average light rail ridership topped 39,000.
What’s magical about 40,000? That's the figure light rail advocates predicted nearly two decades ago.
Because of my long-time outspoken skepticism about the suitability of LRT in our valley, I was asked for an assessment: Is it finally starting to deliver on promises made decades ago? Have my opinions changed or remained the same? And, did the 40,000 projection do any harm or tarnish LRT's image?
This was my response…
I assume last month’s LRT weekday average ridership of 39,000+ was system-wide. What Diridon, et al, predicted was 40,000 per day, first-year, on the Guadalupe Line alone. This fact and the vast differences between what was then and what is now must be drawn to the public’s attention.
As a taxpayer and long-term transportation advocate, I sincerely hope LRT ridership tops 40,000 this month and continues to rise dramatically to the point where it actually begins to meet our valley’s fiscal, economic, social, and environmental needs to reduce congestion and improve our quality of life. I also hope it will achieve the predicted 80% farebox recovery on operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, making more money available for route and feeder bus services, the backbone of a viable multi-modal transit system.
To date, LRT has not lived up to the promises made here or anywhere else in our country. Blame for selecting the LRT alternative in 1981 can be shared equally by overzealous (if not unscrupulous) consultants, over-eager and arithmetically-challenged politicos, naïve and/or intimidated planners, frustrated developers impeded by traffic mitigation requirements, and citizens who wanted to believe there was an easy solution to their daily traffic grind. Numbers like what we refer to locally as “the magical 40,000” were tossed out wherever LRT was being proposed. Many believed the pitch. Reasonable people did not, but were too few to be heard.
A great service would have been done to all if those numbers had been pared to 50% or less. Trouble is LRT had to compete with other transportation alternatives, so ridership forecasts were exaggerated as part of the sales pitch, the “Golden Lie”. After nearly twenty years, we’re still struggling to explain and/or achieve the (now) mythical 40,000, a number that was only wishful-thinking from the start.
Except for causing embarrassment, did the 40,000 projection do any harm? I say yes because…
Back in the late 70s and early 80s, my objection to the light rail alternative was based on data from the very studies used to support it. Those studies actually showed that LRT was not the best choice. A busway in the Guadalupe would have more ridership, provide faster travel times, cost less to build, be better environmentally, and offer seamless service within the communities at each end of a busway trip. Many riders would have been able to avoid transfers, the worst deterrent to transit use.
Importantly, growth of our bus fleet would have remained a priority—our fleet then (as now) was insufficient for route service alone, let alone rail-feeder needs. As we learned on a 1981 fact-finding tour of the Los Angeles El Monte Busway, busways can be built to support easy conversion to rail if/when ridership warrants it. Importantly, 95% of the El Monte busway users were “one-seat rides”; no transfers were needed to get them from their neighborhoods to work each day.
Decision-makers here ignored (probably never read) the studies. Light rail was chosen overwhelmingly. It was a leap of faith. Some clairvoyantly embraced LRT as being the best land-use decision.
The world is not flat. LRT is a reality. We must do what is fiscally, economically, socially, and environmentally responsible to encourage ridership.
My preference is to make transit attractive (not to make auto use unattractive by deferring roadway maintenance or allowing level of service to become intolerable); to make transit time-competitive with autos (skip-stop schedules, express service on all HOVL, etc.); to make transit use convenient (tough to do without enough buses, but possible via timed transfers and other proven techniques; putting all buses and LRVs on the road instead of holding some in reserve would cut headways, a user-friendly approach that wouldn’t add much to operating costs); to focus on origins and destinations in planning routes and new services; and to elevate excellence in customer service to the #1 objective in VTA’s corporate culture.
Have my opinions changed? No, mainly because LRT performance statistics are still so awful. MTC’s audited financial stats show VTA as a poor performer among its peers in the Bay Area. LRT numbers are particularly bad.
VTA has a new general manager. My hope is that he’ll make me a believer. 40,000 riders per month is a good, first step in that direction.
back to vtaridersunion.org
main page