The last rail ribbon cutting for a long, long time

Joined by the top politicians from the Santa Clara County, along with local representatives from the state legislature and the Congress, VTA celebrated the grand opening of the Vasona Light Rail extension.

Among the politicians spoke at the ceremony included County Supervisor Jim Beall, SJ Mayor Gonzales, SJ Councilmember Ken Yeager, Campbell Mayor Jane Kennedy, Los Gatos City Council member and VTA Chair Joe Pirzynski, Caltrain JPB and MTC Rep John McLemore, Assembly Member Rebecca Cohn, and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Congressman Mike Honda also spoke through a pre-recorded video.

In addition to the politicians, Leslie Rogers from the Federal Transit Administration (which is working hard to keep VTA from insanity), SVLG's (the sales tax man) Carl Guardino, and the "Father of Light Rail", Rod Diridon, also spoke. Unlike most other public events, VTA's new GM Burns also spoke at the end of the ceremony to congratulate the agency's employees.

BART and sales tax were mentioned by a few speakers during the event, but were not mentioned quite as frequently as farmers' market. Nearly every politician spoke promoted his or her city's farmers' market and how to get there on light rail or by connecting transit.

After the opening day of free rides, this extension, like all rail projects, is on the hands of the riders, who will determine the success or failure of this project.

This is going to be the last rail ribbon cutting for a long, long time because VTA no longer has an active rail construction program and it is lacking funds (due to BART) to build the future extensions currently under study. Even with a new sales tax, VTA plans to open its next rail project - BART, in 2018, more than a decade away. If the politicians want to have another rail ribbon cutting get-together sooner, they should really consider abandoning BART.

Clear cut fraudulent ridership projection

VTA yesterday released new ridership project for the BART project. From the previous estimate of 87,200 to 111,000. VTA claimed the increase in the projection is due to the use of a newer regional projection from ABAG. On the other hand, it begs the question whether it is actually the case of GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out)?

Several reasons why this projection is fishy:

1. By dividing the 111,000 ridership to six stations, each station would have on average 18,500 entries and exits. Using the 2000 BART ridership breakdown (which has declined since then), only 5 BART stations (all in San Francisco: Powell, Montgomery, Balboa Park, 24th Street, and Embarcadero) have a higher non-transbay entries and exits than 18,500. For reason for using non-transbay ridership because, unlike the transbay corridor faced with limited highway capacity and the $2 toll effective at that time, the drivers Santa Clara County have multiple free routes to and from the East Bay as well as San Francisco. About half of the BART ridership is transbay.

Two major factors should be considered when reviewing BART ridership in San Francisco: 1) San Francisco permits Muni Fast Pass holders unlimited rides on BART within the city, which VTA probably will not allow for its passholders. 2) San Francisco has a considerably higher density than San Jose (16,634.4 persons per square mile in SF v. 5,117.9 persons per square mile in SJ)

If transbay ridership is included, only 9 BART stations have overall ridership over 18,500. In addition to the 5 SF stations, they're 16th Street/Mission, Civic Center, Oakland 12th Street and Downtown Berkeley. So far only the land use around the downtown San Jose station could match downtown Oakland or Berkeley, but without the benefit of the transbay ridership base. Stations in the East Bay further away from the Oakland/SF core tend to have lower ridership, and the land use around these stations are typically similar to the South Bay.

2. VTA's new projection is similar to the LA's Red Line subway, which is 18.6 miles long and carries about 117,543 riders per day. The LA's Red Line has 16 stations, serving downtown LA (which has much taller buildings than San Jose), the Wilshire Corridor (more dense than El Camino, with Metro Rapid buses operating every 2 minutes duplicating the Red Line), Hollywood, and the south end of the San Fernando Valley. It has links to the Blue Line (with 75,000 riders per day) and Gold Line light rail, as well as Amtrak and Metrolink. LA's Red Line uses the same fare structure with its bus and light rail counterparts, offering a flat fare, along with day and monthly passes. It is also a subway line using the proof-of-payment system common with light rail.

LA's sytem was originally projected to carry about 300,000 riders per day.

LA has four times the population of San Jose, and its population density is higher than San Jose but lower than San Francisco.

3. VTA, after years of fare increases and service reductions, have fewer than 100,000 riding on its bus system today. The projected BART ridership is higher than the current systemwide bus ridership. The system in LA, even with 117,543 riders on the Red Line, has over 1.2 million boardings per weekday on its bus system. San Francisco Muni carries over 700,000 riders per weekday on its bus and rail system, more than twice of BART's overall ridership.

If for some magical reasons, VTA achieves the high density developments needed to support 111,000 riders on BART, how many would be riding its buses and light rail? (hint: probably 7 to 10 times higher than BART) And will VTA have the necessary funds to support a bus and light rail system that could carry over 1 million riders each weekday? (probably VTA is assuming that everything else stays constant)

This BART extension isn't the New York subway or London Underground, a higher BART ridership along with a low bus and light rail ridership defies common logic!

Why GIGO? Like in the past, VTA has been certifying lies to win elections. Back in 2000, when Pete Cipolla reported that an additional tax is necessary to provide additional operating funds, some of the directors said in public that a new tax was not needed because the economy was doing so well and the tax money was pouring in. Today, many years sooner than Cipolla originally estimated, VTA plans for a new tax. VTA and the SVLG will likely use this new figure to try mislead voters to support a new tax as well.

VTA insane tax talk heats up

The proposed 1/4 cent sales tax will be the main topic at the upcoming VTA board workshop scheduled this Friday.

In addition to the basic expenditure on assumptions drafted by Gonzales earlier, VTA also evaluated additional assumptions submitted by SV"L"G and the cities in the north county.

In both scenarios submitted by SVLG and the north county, the opening of the BART extension would be delayed for three years to 2018. For the SVLG scenario, the tax would be a temporary tax with a 30 year life, whereas in other scenarios would be permanent. In the case of the north county scenario, the reason for the 3 year delay is to use the extra funds to support Caltrain electrification sooner.

The SVLG version would fund roads and bicycle program, and would eliminate funds for the Downtown-East Valley light rail, along with cutting funds for Caltrain electrification arbitrarily by 10%. The reason for cutting light rail and reduce funding for Caltrain electrification is that these projects don't poll well according to SVLG. SVLG also recommended a 30 year life, rather than a permanent tax, for the same reason.

Caltrain electrification

SVLG underestimated the benefits Caltrain electrificiation, and arbitrarily splited Caltrain station and service improvements (which polled better according to SVLG) from electrification. Currently Caltrain is studying to replace the entire passenger fleet, which most of the vehicles are 20 years old, with new low floor vehicles. The new vehicles would enhance accessibility for the disabled, decrease dwell time, and further improve acceleration.

If a total fleet replacement is to be considered as a waste for Caltrain, wouldn't the total fleet replacement for light rail be a waste as well? VTA replaced its 15-year-old high floor fleet two years ago, with low floor vehicles that, other than improved accessibility, deliver no additional improvements.

Why didn't SVLG arbitrarily split BART into segments (say to Milpitas and then downtown San Jose)? Would one of the segments poll better than the other?

Downtown-East Valley

This is a comment made by the City of San Jose (included in the VTA workshop packet) that demostrated the city's lack of knowledge in transportation:

The Mayor asked for both full and partial light rail options to be brought forward. That means single car light rail all the way down Alum Rock and Santa Clara streets and single car and multi-car light rail down Alum Rock to stop at the BART station at Alum Rock with passengers going down Santa Clara Street to change to bus rapid transit at the Alum Rock Station.

Similarly, bus passengers going up Santa Clara who want to proceed up Alum Rock would change to light rail. The mayor wants the full range of options considered and not just bus rapid transit or single car light rail all the way up or down Santa Clara and Alum Rock. Only then will the San Jose members be in a position to sort out the best option the area.

VTA did not study a light rail extension from Capitol Avenue to 28th Avenue and shouldn't be. Today, passengers riding along that corridor between downtown and East San Jose have a one-seat ride. Building light rail to 28th Avenue means that these passengers would have to transfer between vehicles. Although passengers from the east to downtown could transfer to BART (as Gonzales and SVLG would want them to) for a rail-only trip, most passengers won't because of the high cost involved, along with the inconvenience of walking to and from the subway stop for otherwise a 10-minute bus ride.

If they support BART because it would eliminate a transfer for some out-of-county residents, why would they support a half-ass light rail extension that would add a transfer for in-county residents along the most utilized transit corridor?

San Jose Airport People Mover

Yoriko Kishimoto of the Palo Alto City Council asked about the People Mover, and VTA responded that the project is currently under study. Despite all the promises of a people mover today, the reality is that the project won't go anywhere.

San Jose voters approved a measure in March 2003 that allowed the airport to expand without the people mover to the light rail station on North First Street. The people mover was included in the original expansion as a way to mitigate the anticipated increase of airport traffic: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.16.03/expansion-0303.html

The expansion of the people mover to the other side of the airport is more expensive and complex than to go to the light rail on North First Street. Although having the people mover going under the runway (rather than going around) would shorten the trip time significantly, it seems rather unlikely due to the security sensitivities after 9/11. Also, we don't know who is going to pay for the operating cost of the people mover.

The likely case is that passenger from BART, just like Caltrain and light rail passengers, would have to take bus #10 to get to the airport, even with an extra 1/4 cent sales tax.

San Jose's first subway

Besides the Grand Prix, on July 29, 2005, the City of San Jose made history by opening its first subway, thereby joining other cities such as New York and London that have rail underground. Although it is only about a quarter mile long, the ride through the subway offers a full BART-extension experience today, from the sight and sound, as well as the (lack of) fellow riders on board the trains.

What happened to the employees from the SVLG sponsoring companies who should be filling up the trains?

Who's at fault for the Vasona LR opening delay?

Yesterday VTA announced the delay in the full opening of the Vasona extension to Campbell, yet set the partial opening of the extension to San Jose Diridon station two weeks ahead on August 1. The extension to San Jose Diridon station is set to temporarily open starting tomorrow for the San Jose Grand Prix, where the light rail system would be severed in downtown San Jose where the race track crosses the light rail line at two intersections. Under the original plan, the extension to San Jose Diridon would be closed after the Grand Prix weekend and reopen on Aug 12 along with other stations.

Starting from the San Carlos/Woz Way intersection, where the new light rail line splits from the existing line, the tracks follow an exclusive right of way, and then a short subway, to San Jose Diridon station. From the San Jose Diridon station, the tracks follow the Vasona freight line to Winchester station. The line south of San Jose Diridon shares many grade crossings with the freight line and, at one location, there is a freight spur crossing the light rail line serving an industry.

Unlike many of the startup delays, like those associated with the BART extension to SFO, this was announced two weeks before the scheduled opening date (whereas BART had not yet set a date when delays were announced), where associated bus route changes have taken place (whereas in previous openings the associated bus route changes occurred after the opening of the rail extensions), and where publicity materials and the new light rail timetables have been published and distributed.

Apparently the reasons for the delays are in regulatory nature. In its statement, without mentioning any specifics, VTA blamed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for imposing additional changes before granting waivers. Actually to make things simple, there are two issues at stake: exemption from federal railroad-based rules, and exemption from the federal horn rule.

In an article appeared on today's Mercury News, VTA requested a waiver for various railroad-based work rules that are not applicable to transit operations. In that article, a representative from the FRA blamed VTA for submitting the application for a waiver not early enough.

A search from the Department of Transportation's web site found documents of VTA applying for a waiver related to the railroad-based rules. Apparently at present VTA is trying to renew its existing waiver on the Mountain View line and extend it to include the Vasona line. In the Federal Register published on July 21, FRA recognized the August 12 opening date originally set by VTA and said that it would be willing to give a temporary relief to VTA to open in time.

In a related opinion piece by Scott Herhold, Herhold brought up the FRA horn rule and said that a delay in the Vasona line opening would please the residents along the line, since VTA would have to blow horns at grade crossings until a waiver from FRA is granted. Last month, FRA imposed a horn rule affecting all railroads as well as light rail lines that share track or corridor with railroads. As the result, VTA implemented the FRA's horn requirement on a segment of the Mountain View line, while working with FRA and cities to start "quiet zones," a exemption from blowing horns.

There is a consent agenda item on the August 4 board meeting to approve additional construction for the Vasona line to qualify for horn waiver. The cost of the work is $100,000.

What is clear is that VTA is not revealing a seemingly complicated nature of the regulations. Margaret Okuzumi, a member of the VTA Citizen Advisory Committee, says on VTA Riders Union group: "If there are other reasons VTA should be up front about them. I think it's strange because in my limited experience, the CPUC has requirements that are even more stringent than FRA's."

While I heard others blaming FRA for making surprise decisions (thereby giving a benefit of a doubt to VTA). I think VTA actually has more of the responsibility. Since the federal government works slowly, VTA should have an opportunity to get a head's up for upcoming regulations and could've act sooner to comply with any of the existing or upcoming regulations. Since VTA has already received a waiver from FRA five years ago, VTA should've known when to turn in the "homework" and know the process.

As to the horn rule, VTA could've chosen a initial service plan that only includes service during the daytime, and therefore would minimize the impact on neighbors until the "quiet zone" waiver is granted.

On the other hand, VTA could've chosen a more conservative path and only announce the opening date after all these waivers have been granted. Why did VTA hurry to get this announced? Is it because of the new 1/4 cent sales tax?

SamTrans set hearings to consider weekend closure of two Peninsula BART stations

SamTrans, the agencies that financially supports the BART line south of Daly City, is proposing to close South San Francisco and San Bruno stations on weekends to reduce costs. In addition, SamTrans is planning to further increase the fares between San Mateo County stations (except Millbrae) and SFO by $1, beyond what the BART board of directors has approved.

Eliminating service to station is similar to the Caltrain's new operating plan to be implemented on August 1. Under Caltrain's plan, Broadway and Atherton stations will lose weekday service but will retain weekend service.

SamTrans cites low ridership and high costs as reasons to eliminate service at these two stations on weekends. SamTrans plans to reduce and hopefully eliminate operating subsidies in the next few years. Before the extension was opened, SamTrans actually had operating "surpluses" from Daly City and Colma stations.

Why was SamTrans able to have negative operating subsides before the BART extension to SFO and Millbrae opened? The reason is SamTrans gets to collect the total fare from all passengers riding to and form San Mateo County, but is charged for incremental operating costs within San Mateo County. For example, for a trip between South San Francisco and Embarcadero, SamTrans gets to collect the entire fare of $2.95, despite the fact that only a fraction of the trip mile is made in SamTrans-funded San Mateo County.

The likely argument for this type of accounting is that the BART district is not operating any more trains within its own district than it would have without the extension, and that San Mateo County riders are just using the excess capacity.

Although not specifically mentioned, Caltrain is also using the same type of accounting to support the service to Gilroy (page 29) , which still presented a high farebox recovery despite large ridership drops due to the bad economy and the widened US 101.

The amazing thing is that even with the "special" accounting applied to the BART-SFO extension, the line has far fewer riders and still requires large operating subsidies.

Is this a future for VTA?

BART's averted strike and the VTA tax

The morning after the the strike was averted, someone told me that, if the strike had happened, it would hurt the VTA tax in 2006 as voters will remember the strike and would question why they should pay more taxes to support a system that might not operate.

While I agree in part, I think if the strike happened there might be unintended consequences that no one can calculate.

Nonetheless the public showdown outside the bargaining table between the labor and management is showing a troubling aspect for Santa Clara county. During the showdown, the labor did not receive much sympathy and was often criticized as being a group of highest paid employees wanting to get more. Although the tentative agreement has averted the strike and its impact, it still leaves the impression and the possibility that riders would have to pick up the tabs because of these generous contracts. Before the tentative agreement with labor, BART has already approved a fare increase next year, making the most expensive transit system to ride even more expensive.

As for VTA, what choices do they have? Basically as an agency that contracts its service to another agency, VTA would not be at the bargaining table to negotiate with BART unions. It leaves the possibility that the BART board and management in Oakland might agree on a contract that would shift more burden to VTA than what VTA had planned. Since only BART can run a BART line, VTA cannot control the operating costs by contracting the operation through competitive bidding or using its own employees. In constrast, Caltrain's operation is competitively contracted, in addition to VTA having representation on the Caltrain board.

A new sales tax basically means a blank check for the BART management and unions in Oakland, at the expense of VTA riders, employees, and taxpayers.

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.

The 2006 Measure A sales tax campaign starts now

At the special VTA board meeting scheduled for June 16, the VTA board is asked to approve a request by the SJ Mayor Gonzales, essentially giving an early endorsement for a 1/4 cent sales tax.

Gonzales's request is to direct the VTA staff to come up with a capital expenditure plan "tax plan" primarily with the following assumptions:

• 1/4 cent sales tax
• Full BART extension ASAP, including the appendage to the Santa Clara freight rail yard
• Cutting one of the two proposed BART subway stations in downtown San Jose
• Reduce cost initially by cutting the number of BART rail cars to be purchased
• More of the same as to funding other projects and programs, but to assume that these projects would speed up implementation by decreasing costs on their own
• No airport peoplemover at least until 2020

Gonzales specifically recommended the board not to look at funding scenarios with no new tax. He also refer to the SVLG's own private poll specifically as one of the factors for these assumptions.

Through this memo, he is attempting to reach a compromise for a new tax. He is willing to give up one of the two downtown San Jose BART subway stations, but he is still asking for a full extension, with the appendage to Santa Clara rail yard, to be built all at once. Still, his insistance signals a unwillingness to follow a common practice performed at other agencies, and continues to pose a risk for other projects from having their funds raided for BART, despite the token protection listed in the memo for Caltrain electrification and other projects through some undefined savings.

This latest attempt for a compromise could mean a higher 2000 Measure A tax for less of the 2000 Measure A program. The 2000 Measure A, no matter how many times "71% voter approval" Gonzales and Guardino repeat over and over, is a damaged good.

Mr. Burns to become VTA's general manager

It is still not entirely clear at these point why VTA would chose him over other candidates. If they think that hiring Michael Burns as a new general manager would make their worthless BART project to look more worthy, they are wrong. No one can turn chicken shit into chicken salad.

It apprears that Michael Burns' strength is on transit operation. He was hired as the head of San Francisco Muni after the infamous Muni Metro Meltdown in 1998. Since then, the performance of the system has improved. He has advocated for plans to make the system more efficient, and a vision that is similar to what Rescue Muni advocates.

On the other hand, during his tenure in Muni, the only major capital project that went into operation was the F-line streetcar extension to Fisherman's Wharf in 2000, with planning and construction began many years before him. The only expansion project that was developed partly under his watch is the Third Street Light Rail, which is currently under construction. Also, Burns has not managed any highway projects in San Francisco. With Pete Cipolla at VTA, three light rail projects went into construction and two of them were opened, with the last one scheduled to open two months from now.

However, given Burns' strength in operation, perhaps he could take actions to improve the system with what VTA already has. Trying to do that at VTA would certainly be easier than trying to do anything in San Francisco, where the political crap is many times more worse than in Santa Clara County. Up in the city, every little thing could trigger a power trip with the politicians. Also, incompetence, fraud, and waste not only are tolerated, but are considered to be justified.

On the other hand, no matter how competent the general manager is, the success and failure of the agency also depends on the board of directors. Sadly, the board is very political and its policies is largely driven by non-transportation agendas and conflicting interests. With VTA's agenda wrong all these years, would Burns try to correct the situation? Or would he just bendover and go against professional sense? Could he become another Pete Cipolla?