The San Jose BART extension was never planned from a regional
need perspective as to how best we should spend regional transit
funds.
The San Jose BART extension was never planned from a regional need perspective as to how best we should spend regional transit funds. It was politically promoted and locally planned to connect to BART a regional system, with enthusiastic support from the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group. Now it is developing into a project so costly as to be ruinous.
The project was proposed as a campaign promise. Mayor Ron Gonzales then approached Governor Davis for initial funding and managed to garner a portion of the needed $765 million under the state’s Transportation Congestion Relief Program when the state had a surplus. Since he was successful with the state, the SVMG backed the mayor in promoting a sales tax extension of 30 years beginning in 2006 to fund a major portion of the $3.7 billion project.
More than $2 million was raised to promote passage of the sales tax but little was mentioned of its cost or effectiveness. They essentially emphasized the state grant, the need for congestion relief because roadways from the East Bay were among the worst in the region, and BART’s appeal. No mention was made of the Metropolitan Transportation Association’s estimated cost of the project at $100.49 per trip/new rider ($200.98 for round trip!).
Traffic from the East Bay to Silicon Valley – ranked one of the most congested at that time – was heavily emphasized plus the need for BART to relieve it. The East Bay traffic amounted to only 8 percent in and out of Santa Clara County. The county itself, where serious congestion also exists, generates 82 percent of the traffic, and could use added transit providing an alternative to congestion.
Being a widely traveled retired traffic engineer (made over 14 overseas trips examining transit and developments), I concluded there is no solution for congestion. As a matter of fact, many developments promote, encourage and desire congestion. So we should find ways to cope with congestion by trying to minimize added car use by providing well-planned developments with integrated transit.
BART has never relieved congestion. Consider the most congested corridor – the Bay Bridge before and after BART operated. Why, for example, is there a clamor to build the fourth Caldecott Tunnel when BART has paralleled it for 30 years. Transit is an alternative to congestion and when congestion increases transit use increases.
After the passage of the sales tax, VTA hurriedly spent millions using funds that were not really available until 2006 to prepare a Major Investment Study (MIS) and an EIR for the $840 million Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant for the project.
FTA has since questioned VTA on the projected ridership since the MIS cost per trip/new rider was less than 1/5 of MTC’s $100.49 per trip/new rider primarily due to increased riders.
Another interesting disclosure in the MIS was, if VTA administered and built the project themselves, they would save $430 million rather than in coordination with BART. And in operation they could save $9 million per year. Yet VTA choose to stay with BART.
VTA has not fully considered BART type applications. One problem pertains to BART’s odd gauge rail. With BART’s atypical gauge it costs more for BART cars. If it were standard gauge, future and existing rail could utilize much of the costly construction, especially the subway. Several lines could merge and use the subway. They would pass freely avoiding congested central city traffic. Stuttgart Germany, has a network of 10 LRT lines and most lines merge into two subways providing excellent downtown transit. VTA could also accomplish this with the growing number of proposed LRTs. The LRT could also be converted to Metro type cars in the future.
The current project cost has increased to $4.1 billion but available FTA funds have also been reduced. In keeping, VTA had to reduce cost. VTA is deleting two local stations that encompass diverse and lower-income areas. This deletion diminishes the Projects Social Equity aspect that FTA strongly enforces.
The MIS planning director mentioned that more than 60 percent of the project users would be from out of the county. By deleting two local stations, this percentage would increase.
Another looming problem is VTA’s annual $48 million maintenance/operation BART contract, which VTA has budgeted only few a years after completion. After a few years where is $48 million coming from? Total operational cost is $63 million leaving a $15 million annual deficit. VTA also requires 76 percent fare recovery to garner $48 million from fares, a percentage BART never attained.
I would question financially strapped VTA spending $2 billion in county sales tax, plus extra operating subsidies to benefit more riders outside the county when there are other projects that could enhance transit within the county.
Guest columnist Roy Nakadegawa is an engineer and a BART Director from District 3. Anyone interested in writing a guest column should contact Editor Mark Derry at 842-6400 or send an e-mail to [email protected]
