Things that VTA should have told voters about

At the VTA Board workshop yesterday, General Manager Michael Burns told what a lot of us have been suspected but was denied by the supporters during the Measure B campaign.

"It's clear we can't see the BART project getting ($750 million in federal) money if we're spending our local money on other projects," Burns said in an interview earlier this week. "That just doesn't add up."

During the meeting, VTA also admitted that it would receive $2 billion less from the 2000 Measure A than what was projected earlier.

Basically Burns was saying that all the other projects would be off the table, even the airport people mover, a project that has no operating funds identified. The BRT project along Santa Clara Street, which replaced light rail as originally listed on the 2000 Measure A, is also at risk.

Although some think that the bickering should stop, the bickering will never end as long as VTA has to deploy deceptive tactics to get a tax passed. Burns said that BART was approved by voters twice, but we all know that VTA did not put other projects on the ballot twice for voters to approve. VTA controlled which projects go onto the ballot, controlled how much tax to collect, and controlled what information released relevent to voters. VTA has become a Russian style "democracy."

Given the election results in Los Angeles and the North Bay, VTA could've been better off by being more honest.

BRT Survey

VTA is conducting an online survey about the proposed Bus Rapid Transit. The survey doesn't ask where BRT ought to be aligned (because it is part of same politically motivated process that produced flaw alignments for light rail and BART) or what features it should have, instead the survey asks you to choose between the logo designs and vehicle colors.





While there's nothing wrong with trying to build a brand name and an identity, this effort lacks sincerity. There's no assurance whether the final BRT product would have everything riders expect. For instance, after 3 years, the 522 bus still does not have a predictive arrival system.

Bus bunching

One of the major factors contributed to today's collision on Santa Clara Street is bus bunching, which is when a number of buses travel in a pack because of some late buses. Hours after the collision today, bus bunching continued on the line 22 in both directions throughout the afternoon.

Even though service on the Santa Clara Street east of downtown has a combined frequency of 6 minutes (lines 22 and 23), it is often unachievable because of bus bunching, especially on line 22. Bus bunching forces passengers to wait longer for a late and crowded bus, and makes the next bus that comes minutes after underutilized. Buses could end up leapfrogging each other.

Observations made after the collision:


While on a westbound 22 bus, it goes past a 22 bus (a non-articulated bus) just before downtown San Jose.


On the same bus at Santa Clara and 1st, the bus is about to pass another 22 bus stopped right in front.


The collision occurred at this location at Santa Clara and 23rd. Just a few minutes after this picture was taken, a pedestrian got hit on a crosswalk at Santa Clara and 24th by a turning car. This area is not particularly safe for pedestrians.

For the past 8 years, with all the wrong priorities, VTA has yet to implement a system that provides real-time bus arrival predictions. Such systems are already in use by Muni in San Francisco and AC Transit's BRT lines in the East Bay. Real time arrival predictions are valuable for riders in areas where service is less reliable or on lines that don't operate on a strict timetable (like the 522).

VTA to study express buses

VTA is currently looking to hire a consultant to study express buses in the Valley. VTA call it "highway-based BRT" to differentiate with the other type of BRT (bus rapid transit) that operates on main thoroughfare like the 522. The study will be an addition to the work, such as market analysis, already performed for the COA.

An outcome of the study is to provide a list of improvements that can be completed for the next 10 years. After that, VTA assumes that BART would be extended and that somehow everything about the transit market would be different.

Unlike other cities, Santa Clara County is different when it comes to express bus service. In most cities, express bus service focuses on bring people from the suburbs to downtown. Just in San Francisco, express buses operated by various agencies take riders from the East Bay, the North Bay, and San Mateo County to downtown.

Until recently, the only express service to Downtown San Jose was line 180 from Fremont. In January, VTA added another express bus route (168) to downtown from Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The rest of the express bus routes take commuters from Fremont and other parts of the county to major office parks on the north and west side of the county, such as Lockheed Martin/Moffett Park and Stanford Industrial Park.

Unlike Downtown San Jose, these office parks provide ample free parking, and offer few if any outside amenities within walking distance. In these environments, some commuters would want to bring their cars just so that they can run errands during lunch time.

Also, some of the major Santa Clara County employers provide their own shuttle service. The most prominent one is Google, which some said its shuttles from San Francisco is influencing the real estate prices there. Besides Google, Apple, Yahoo, and VM Ware hire charter bus operators to shuttle their employees. Part of the study will ask whether VTA is providing the service that these employers are looking for, and whether VTA could fulfill their needs.

Finally, VTA does not have its own fleet for express buses. Agencies like AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit operate MCI coaches that provide more comfortable rides. Regular buses with high back commuter seats are used on Dumbarton Express and Highway 17 Express. On the other hand, VTA uses regular buses, often filthy and sometimes without padded seats, on all of its express routes. VTA once operated commuter buses in the past, but these buses were retired in 2003 without replacement. The study will consider providing better passenger amenities, including onboard wi-fi internet access.

VTA to host meeting on Downtown East Valley

VTA has released a draft environmental impact report on the Santa Clara-Alum Rock corridor project. Eight years ago, light rail on the that corridor was one of the key projects listed on the 2000 Measure A in order to woo voters. Now it has been watered down to a bus rapid transit project with a possibility of a light rail upgrade.

For the BRT, VTA proposes to operate the existing 522 and the new 523 from downtown to Eastridge along Santa Clara/Alum Rock and then Capitol Expressway. On Santa Clara/Alum Rock west of King, buses will run on the curbside lane with upgraded bus stops that extend to the traffic lane. East of King, buses will run on the median bus lanes to Capitol Avenue. On Capitol Avenue, buses will operate pretty much as it is. VTA estimates a 25 minute travel time between Eastridge and San Jose Diridon Station.

Even if the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge (approved as a separate project, but unfunded) goes forward, buses will continue to serve Eastridge according to the study. However, the EIR has suggested that VTA could defer that project.

As for the light rail alternative, it is similar to the BRT proposal in various ways. It will share lanes with street traffic west of King and have reserved right of way east of King. The light rail alternative has an estimated travel time of a 27 minutes between San Jose Diridon Station and Eastridge, 90 seconds longer than the BRT. VTA says light rail could not be built at least until 2018, when BART is supposed to be completed. Also in the EIR, VTA threw out the idea of putting light rail underground (just like BART) because of the obvious high cost.

Essentially, as long as BART is on the table, light rail is dead on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor. Even though light rail construction could technically move forward once BART construction completes, the reality is that VTA will run out of money by then and it will instead cut local bus service on that corridor to force riders onto BART. Whatever assumptions about the operating plan in the EIR should be taken with a grain of salt.

Although BRT is a good, cost-effective plan worthy of consideration, a switch from light rail to BRT nonetheless represents a pattern of double standards. If VTA actually put as much effort to develop a cost-effective alternative to BART as it did for light rail on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, VTA wouldn't have to ask voters for another tax increase this November.

VTA has scheduled a meeting on Thursday to receive feedback on the proposal:

Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 6 p.m.
(presentation begins at 6:30 p.m.)
Mexican Heritage Plaza, Green Room
1700 Alum Rock Avenue
San Jose, CA 95116

VTA's minimal job to start its first rapid bus line

Next week, VTA will start its first rapid bus line on the El Camino corridor. The cost to improve the corridor was $3.5 million. Since the project corridor is about 26 miles long, it comes to about $134,616 per mile. BART would cost at least 1000 times more per mile and it certainly won't have 1000 times the ridership as the 22 corridor. The rapid bus, similar to the Baby Bullet Caltrain service, has the potential to substantially increase service and ridership at a reduced cost. That's why VTA has been dragging its feet when it comes to implementing rapid bus: trying to protect its senseless BART project.

LA's Metro Rapid set a standard for rapid bus, an initial implementation of fuller scale bus rapid transit. On its web site, MTA stated its characteristics:

Key Metro Rapid Attributes:

• Simple route layout: Makes it easy to find, use and remember
• Frequent service: Buses arrive as often as every 3-10 minutes during peak commuting times
• Fewer stops: Stops spaced about a ¾ mile apart, like rail lines, at most major transfer points
• Level boarding: Low-floor buses speed-up dwell times
• Bus priority at traffic signals: New technology reduces traffic delay by extending the green light or shortening the red light to help Metro Rapid get through intersections
• Color-coded buses and stops: Metro Rapid’s distinctive red paint makes it easy to identify Metro Rapid stops and buses
• Enhanced stations: Metro Rapid stations provide information, lighting, canopies and “Next Trip” displays

VTA's proposal for 522 met most of the charactistics as the LA's Metro Rapid, except with the minimal required frequency for headway based service (every 15 minutes) and the lack of enhanced stations. Except with the special Rapid signs, the rapid stops are just regular stops with regular shelters, and there won't be any next trip displays that would come in handy for passengers to decide whether to wait for the rapid bus or take the next bus they see.

Although it would cost more for VTA to implement these features, the cost would be relatively small and would enhance the effectiveness of the faster service. Unfortunately, VTA would rather spend more money on consultants for the preliminary engineering of the BART project, which all by itself it doesn't improve transportation.