The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Jose’s transit agency, has been making a series of happy-talk advertisements about how transit is green, is faster than driving, and reduces congestion. Of course, it is none of those things: VTA uses about as much energy and producing as much greenhouse gases per passenger mile as the average SUV; VTA light-rail trains average less than 16 mph and its buses less than 12; and rather than reduce congestion it is increasing it as its poor service leads people to give up transit and drive instead.
The reality is that VTA’s transit and transportation planning has proven to be a disaster for Silicon Valley. In 2000, VTA buses and light-rail transit carried 55.6 million riders, or more than 36 trips per capita in the San Jose urban area. Ridership grew to 57.3 million in 2001. But then the dot-com crash hit, reducing jobs and ridership. Desperate to avoid defaulting on the huge loans it had taken out to build light rail, by 2005 VTA had cut bus service by more than 20 percent. Even though the number of jobs declined by only 9 percent, ridership fell by more than 30 percent.
The economy came roaring back, and today Silicon Valley has 23 percent more jobs than it did in 2005. Yet VTA failed to restore bus service: though it increased light-rail service by more than 40 percent since 2005, it left bus service virtually unchanged. In 2017, total bus and light-rail ridership was slightly more than in 2005, but still 30 percent less than in 2000. Today transit carries under 25 trips per capita, ridership has declined every year since 2015, and is on track to lose another 5 percent in fiscal year 2018 (VTA’s fiscal years end on June 30).
Rather than do something about this serious problem, the big question for VTA has been whether it should build a single double-decked tunnel or two tunnels for BART to get to downtown San Jose. Downtown property owners who had strongly backed bringing BART to San Jose nevertheless were deathly afraid of the two tunnel option, which meant closing streets, digging holes, covering up the holes, and then reopening the streets. A single tunnel would be built by a tunnel-boring machine, which wouldn’t require closing the streets — but it would also be more expensive.
Despite reservations from BART, VTA went with the single-tunnel option. Yet it was through this technology that New York City built what the New York Times called the “most expensive subway mile on earth.” Moreover, only one double-decked, single-bore tunnel has previously been built, making the project even riskier.
The reality is that all of this debate is a waste of time and money. VTA shouldn’t even be building BART to downtown San Jose. The argument for this project is that it will spur downtown development. But why does one of the wealthiest regions in the world need a government project to spur development?
All of VTA’s planning is based on an outmoded vision of a city. In that vision, jobs are downtown and transit brings people to those jobs. But downtown San Jose has less than 4 percent of the region’s jobs, and at least ten other Silicon Valley job centers are more important. Instead of trying to turn Silicon Valley into a nineteenth-century city, VTA should be designing and operating a transit system that works for the region as a whole — and that means buses rather than trains.
With more than 6,000 people per square mile, Silicon Valley is the third-densest urban area in the United States. Yet population density does not translate to high transit ridership. Instead, transit only works with high job densities, and Silicon Valley doesn’t have that. Individual campuses such as Apple, Facebook, and Google may have lots of jobs, but they tend to be poorly served by VTA, forcing the employers to provide their own bus systems.
People who don’t understand how modern cities work have been given control of billions of dollars of public funds. They are totally misusing those funds and ignoring the fact that the results they claim to want — higher transit ridership — aren’t being achieved. Perhaps someone should make a video about this failure.