Rubin Nov 2007 VTA Worst US Transit Agency

8/8/2019 Rubin Nov 2007 VTA Worst US Transit Agency

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rubin-nov-2007-vta-worst-us-transit-agency 1/39

PRESERVING THE AMERICAN DREAM

RECOVERING FROM SMART GROWTHSAN 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 lowestpercentage of new riders ± .9%

The Extension now projected at $1,411million for 1.7 miles ± $830/mile

(Located in Congressional District of the Speaker of the

United States House of Representatives)









Project Background ± Approved CEQA ProjectB ART to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara

16.1-mile extension

6 stations (plus 1future)

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 beingevaluated in

the federal New

Starts fundingprocess.



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, MTCmodeled 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 to³only´ $22/new rider ± by assuming thatdowntown SJ would grow to about 80% of downtown San Francisco, adding 340,000home-to-work trips, >10% on BART, most of therest ± you guessed it ± added to the roads(about 14 freeway lanes worth, under veryconservative assumptions).



A Bit of History of This Project III

One of the keys to understanding SouthBay transportation is understanding thatthe Central Business District is not a major

transportation destination ± this is one of the best examples of ³everyone going fromeverywhere to everywhere´ travel in theU.S.

Then factor in geographic limitations ± theBay and mountains

« and then add ³smart growth´ and «



A Bit of History of This Project IV

You wind up with a rather difficulttransportation situation, often made worseby the, ³We¶re, Silicon Valley, the placethat is coming up with the ideas that aremoving the world, and we have the abilityto solve all the world¶s problems by

developing plans to make good thingshappen and then throwing money at themwith both hands,´ attitude.



A Bit of History of This Project V

Santa Clara County has always favored a, umm,³innovative solution´ approach, to transportationproblem solving:

± Example 1: Propane-fueled buses

± Example 2: Self-designed bus wheelchair lifts

Marty Wachs, "Ethics and Advocacy inForecasting 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 practicesof Santa Clara County governmental unitshave led to its unofficial nickname inCalifornia governmental circles of ³SantaClaus County:´

± PERS, with VTA paying the ³employee´

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 Districttakes 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 CongestionManagement Agency



Norman Mineta

Mayor of San Jose, 1971-75 ± Father of SantaClara County ³smart growth´ by creatingdevelopment 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 throughrequirement that UMTA execute agreement fundingfirst light rail line ± one of the key actions that led tocurrent Federal process of ³earmarking´ all ³newstarts´ 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, whatagain, is the question?)

VTA determined to keep designing BARTto San Jose, spending hundreds of millions of dollars ± even through there is

absolutely no guarantee of the funding tobuild it ± while the rest of the transitsystem goes downhill





A Bit of History of This Project IX

Approval of First Line ± basically North-South through CBD ± took years to getFederal funding because of poor

performance Opened in stages, beginning in 1987,

because of environmental clearancechallenge, which required redo of EIS/EIRthat delayed Southern leg ± which was/isprimarily residential



A Bit of History of This Project X

VTA, led by the former Mayor, keptpushing for approval of the entire project ±and getting nowhere

Finally, there was a meeting in DC wherethe Secretary of Transportation ± N ormMineta ± told VTA to break it intosomewhat more manageable pieces,which is why the first leg is now under study



A Bit of History of This Project XI

After the ³dot.com´ collapse, sales taxcollections collapsed along with the localeconomy ± instead of 5+% annualincrease, real decreases of >15%

VTA response was to increase base fare59%, monthly passes 86%, and daypasses 139%, from 1998-2005, and cutservice by 20% ± while continuing to takethe newly enacted sales tax funds for railsystem expansion

VTA ridership fell 31% from 2001 to 2006



Current VTA System

Bus ± ~82 routes, ~550 buses, ~ 100,000daily unlinked passenger trips (UPT)

Light Rail ± 42.2 miles of track, two mainlines and a shuttle, 100 vehicles, 62stations, ~26,000 daily UPT

Joint Ventures ± ACE, Caltrain, CapitalCorridor commuter rail

Cooperative inter-county bus service w/ACTransit, Santa Cruz, and Monterey-Salinas



Performance Measures I

Let¶s see how VTA light rail and busoperating statistics compare to the FTA³Top 50´ transit operators ± 19 light railoperators and the 20 largest of the 46 busoperators (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

39.7

34.733.1

31.7

27.926.8 26.6 26.5

25.3 24.823.6 23.3

21.9

19.2 19.218.2 17.7

15.9

13.1 12.7

9.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

M B T A M T

L A - M T A

M T A - H C U T

A

T r i - M e t

S D T I

B i - S t

W e i g h t e d

A v e . D A R T

N J T C

S i m p l e

A v e . M U N I

M - M T A

S E P T A

G C R T A S a c R T

P A T

S C V T A

R T D

K C - D O T

Agency

SCVTA has the third-lowest Average Passenger Load of the nineteen.




Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$404

$360$350

$324

$287 $286

$245 $243 $241$229

$216$207 $206 $198 $188

$165 $163

$136 $130 $125

$89

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

M - M T

A

L A - M T A

N J T C

S C V T

A D A

R T P A T

M T A - H C

K C - D O T B i

- S t

S i m p l e

A v e

.

G C R T A S a

c R T

W e i g h

t e d A v e

. M U

N I

M B T A

T r i - M

e t M T

S E P T A

R T D

U T A

S D T I

Agency

Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Farebox Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour

SCVTA has fourth highest cost and fourth highest subsidy.




Farebox Recovery Ratio

53.9%

47.2%

42.4%

34.4%32.2%31.3%30.5%

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%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

S D T I

M B T A M T

T r i - M e

t U T

A

S E P T

A R T

D B i

- S t

W e i g h t e

d A v e

.

S i m p l e

A v e

. M U

N I

S a c R

T N J

T C

L A - M T

A P A

T

G C R T

A

M T A -

H C

M - M T

A

S C V T

A D A

R T

K C - D O

T

Agency




Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile

MBTA

MUNI

LA-MTA

Tri-Met

SDTI

SEPTA

DART

Bi-St

UTA

NJTC

SacRT

RTD

MTA-HC

MT

PAT

SCVTA

M-MTA

GCRTAWeighted Ave.

Simple Ave.

KC-DOT

(Subsidy/Passenger

Mile = $4.89)

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00

Subsidy/Passenger

S u b s i d y / P a s s e n g e r M i l e

La-MTA's performance is well below average.



FTA "TOP 20" + VTA MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005

Average Passenger Load

19.3

15.314.3

13.9 13.613.0

12.612.0 11.8 11.7 11.4 11.3

10.6 10.510.2 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.0

8.4 8.1

2.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

N Y C T

L A - M T A

M - M T

A

S E P T

A

K C - D O T

N J T C

W e i g h t

e d A v e

. O C

T A

W M A

T A C T A

M T A - H C

S i m p l e

A v e .

M A R T

A M T

T r i - M

e t A C M D

T R T

D P A

T

M B T A

D A R T

S C V T

A

N Y C D

O T

Agency

LA-MTA is second highest of the twenty. (NYC DOT Passenger Mile data appears to be very incorrect.)



FTA "TOP 20" + VTA MOTOR BUS OPERATORS 2005

Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$201

$152$140

$132 $128$123 $121 $119 $116 $113 $113 $110 $107 $107

$104 $100 $98 $98 $95 $95 $92 $92 $91

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

$225

N Y C D

O T

S C V T

A N Y

C T

K C - D O T A C

W M A

T A N J

T C

M - M T

A

W e i g h t

e d A v e .

S i m p l e

A v e .

S E P T

A P A T C T A

T r i - M

e t

L A - M T A M T

O C T A

M B T A M D

T D A

R T

M T A - H C

M A R T

A R T D

Agency

Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Fare Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour

VTA has the second-highest cost per hour and the second-highest subsidy per hour.



FTA "TOP 20" + VTA BUS OPERATORS 2005

Farebox Recovery Ratio

42.4%

39.9%

34.2%34.1%32.8%

31.2%30.6%30.0%29.8%28.5%28.1%

26.7%

24.2%23.8%23.5%22.0%

20.5%20.5%18.9%18.7%17.9%

14.0%12.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

N Y C T

N J T C C T

A

S E P T

A

N Y C D

O T

W e i g h t

e d A v e

.

M A R T

A

L A - M T A

M - M T

A M T M D T

S i m p l e

A v e .

W M A

T A O C

T A P A T

M B T A

K C - D O T R T

D A C

T r i - M

e t

M T A - H C

S C V T

A D A

R T

Agency

VTA is second lowest.



FT "TOP 20" BUS OPER TORS 2005

Subsid /Passenger & Subsid /Passenger Mile

NYCT

L -MT

CT

SEPT

WM T

MT -HC

KC-DOT

MBT

MDT

RTDM-MT

P T

MT

NYCDOT (Invalid

Passenger Mile data)

D RTTri-Met

M RT

C

NJTC

Weighted ve.

Simple ve.

OCT

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

$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

Subsid /Passenger

S u b s i d

/ P a s s e n g e r M i l e



FTA "TOP 20" + VTA BUS OPERATORS 2005

Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile

NYCT

LA-MTA

CTA

SEPTA

WMATA

MTA-HC

KC-DOT

MBTA

MDT

RTDM-MTA

PAT

MT

NYCDOT (Invalid

Passenger Mile data)

DARTTri-Met

MARTA

AC

NJTC

Weighted Ave.

Simple Ave.

OCTA

SCVTA

$0.30

$0.50

$0.70

$0.90

$1.10

$1.30

$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

S u b s i d y / P a s s e n g e r M i l e



Overall Operational Assessment

Average Passenger Load ± LR ThirdLowest, Bus Lowest

Cost/Subsidy per Vehicle Revenue Mile ±LR Fourth Highest, Bus Second Highest

Farebox Recovery Ratio ± LR ThirdLowest, Bus Second Lowest

Subsidy/Passenger & Passenger-Mile ±Highest



Density and Transit SystemModal Selection I

The great advantage of bus transit is itsrelatively low capital cost, which leads toflexibility ± while bus can be used very

effectively in high transit demandcorridors, it is a mode that can be useful inlower demand areas and lines

Rail, on the other hand, because of itshigh initial capital cost, should only beconsidered where there is great density ±not of population, or jobs, but of trips



Density and Transit SystemModal Selection II

In Santa Clara County, where the density of tripsis so low that the bus system is very arguablythe least productive and cost-effective in the

U.S., the adopted response was to build light rail ± w hich 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 touse it, the adopted response is to build heavy

rail ± and to do so largely as subway, its mostexpensive form



IS VTA THE WORST TRANSITSYSTEM 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 thefiscal resources do not exist to do so

Willing to destroy existing transit system, and theriders who depend upon it, in pursuit of this³dream´



So, I S VTA THE WORST TRANSITSYSTEM IN THE U.S.?

I don¶t know for sure, but if there is a worseone out there, I hope I never find it.

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	silicon-valley-transit-users
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Rubin Nov 2007 VTA Worst US Transit Agency

Documents