Dec 8, 2000
Carolyn Gonot
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First St.
San Jose, CA 95134
408-321-5623
Dear Ms. Gonot,
Our comments on VTP 2020 draft are in this letter.
In general, the Modern Transit Society (MTS) supports the transit
projects in the VTP 2020. The major points are:
• (p.77): The BART alignment to San Jose should not be assumed
to be decided. There has been no MIS. Consideration needs to given
the “SP” or “UP” corridors for cost, travel time,
and patronage. Specifically, the “SP” can reach downtown
San Jose without any tunneling (reducing cost by half or more), is
more direct, and avoids stations that will be serviced by LRT anyway
(on Santa Clara St.) or should be (WP, Great Mall to Kelly Park). For
more info see
moderntransit.org/gw/2a.html
• A demonstration project for new transit technology should
occur in conjunction with the San Jose Airport guideway link. MTS
believes that Personal Rapid Transit, or at least Automated Guideway
Transit, holds the key to future mobility.
moderntransit.org/gw/1a.html#personal
• (p. 8): “... transit travel times need to be competitive
to automobiles travel times.” We completely agree. VTA should
place an effort to truly implement signal preemption for LRT (also
for buses). There are a number of intersections that are notoriously
time consuming for LRT because automobiles are given a higher
priority.
• (p. 71): The term “Bus Rapid Transit” is
unfortunate. Historically, “Rapid Transit” has always meant
rail transit that is fast, as opposed to streetcars or buses. It is
suggested that “fast bus” or other term be used, despite
the fact the federal program uses this term.
• For new LRT lines, changing timing order on signal lights to
enable a left-turn-arrow green after the through (main) green would
prevent left-turning drivers becoming in the habit of looking at the
wrong signal light (the through green signal). An approaching LRV
changes the default signal pattern, and their bad habit results in a
turn left at the wrong time, thus colliding with an LRV.
MTS opposes further subsidies to the automobile. It is well known
that automobiles are greatly
subsidized by both government and involuntary private subsidies
(e.g., parking lots, developer fees for roads). In its role as
Congestion Management, VTA should recognize that automobile subsidies
increase auto use and congestion. VTA should conduct an audit of
automobile subsidies using full-cost accounting. Most of the public,
and most politicians, are not even aware of these subsidies. The
first step to their elimination is identification. See Free Market
for Transportation Plan at
moderntransit.org/fmt/
Highway construction always has the result of encouraging greater
auto use, with no net reduction in congestion (except possibly when
direct users are charged for it). This phenomena, only recognized in
recent years, is called induced traffic. Ignoring induced
traffic results in money being wasted and increasing pollution.
Automobiles are the competitor to transit in the urban transportation
market so building roads will also harm transit ridership.
moderntransit.org/links-induced.html
• (p.24) “Road Pricing” is only mentioned as a method
of financing more automobile capacity. MTS supports road pricing for
another purpose: reducing, even eliminating, traffic congestion. A
fact that is not commonly known except by highway engineers is that
freeway capacity would double by keeping traffic moving at around 40
mph. This feature should be exploited. A political way to achieve
this is by implementing this feature, called “demand
pricing,” on carpool lanes. Change to HOT lanes and define HOV
as 3 or more. Use proceeds to finance transit in the corridor.
moderntransit.org/fmt/fmt02.html
• There are a number of other methods to reduce congestion. The
easiest to accomplish is “employee parking cashout.”
Unfortunately, VTA staff has had no interest in this despite several
overtures on our part. Employee parking cashout has been shown to
reduce car commuting by 26%. Details at:
moderntransit.org/cashout/cashout.html
• A one page summary of 9 low-cost or no-cost ways to reduce
congestion is at:
moderntransit.org/solution.html
• Last year, MTS wrote a letter the VTA stating that the project
priorities on expressways would endanger pedestrians. For the same
expressway, highway funding was given higher priority than pedestrian
funding in most cases, and never a lower priority. This could result
in repeat of past actions of the County highway engineers: They
destroyed pedestrian and bicycle facilities while adding more lanes
for automobiles, forcing pedestrians to walk in the traffic lane. The
priorities need to put pedestrians and bicyclists projects at least
on the same priority level as automobile projects for the same
section of roadway. While priorities were not stated in this
year’s draft copy, they were stated in last year’s
version.
moderntransit.org/letters/expressway-list.html
• (p. 65) MTS agrees that widening Montague Expy. “would
not eliminate congestion.” Nor would it reduce it, as widening
would just encourage more car commuters through the East Bay gateway.
VTA should consider alternatives. An important point regarding
Montague is that pedestrians are allowed on the roadway. If highway
construction to add lanes destroys pedestrian facilities, including
existing shoulders, this will cause danger to pedestrians and
potentially result in a fatality. Because lighting does not exist for
many portions of this road, the danger would be more acute at night.
The County highway engineers destroyed the sidewalk on Montague
crossing Coyote river when they added more lanes (the “HOV
lanes”) and also reduced shoulder width to a narrow 4 feet in
many places. In some locations, shoulders were eliminated completely.
Before any lanes are added, the problems caused by adding the last
set of lanes needs to be first rectified. Note: Pedestrians
are allowed on Montague, as well as on most
expressways, despite claims of some highway engineers to the contrary
(actually, a pretense to avoid the issue).
moderntransit.org/capitol/ped-transit.html
• (p. 65) The proposed widening of Central Expy. for “HOV
lanes” is totally unnecessary because the paralleling Hwy. 101
already has them. Data on HOV lanes on Montague Expy., San Tomas, and
elsewhere show that the real beneficiaries of HOV lanes are
solo-drivers. The existing carpoolers move over to the newly
constructed lane, leaving a vacancy in the “regular” lanes.
This vacancy is soon filled by solodrivers. MTS has shown that when
carpool lanes were added, the market share of HOVs actually
dropped.
moderntransit.org/hov/hov-facts.html
A further note on Central Expy. is that pedestrians are allowed on
Central in Santa Clara as a result of the City Council repelling the
prohibition at our request. Yet, there are no plans for pedestrian
facilities after adding lanes. In some locations, the shoulder that
was used by pedestrians was turned into a right-turn only lane,
meaning people must walk in the 50 mph traffic lane. As a result of
MTS action, sidewalks were construction on Lawrence Expy. Capitol
Expy. when lanes were added, but only after years of fighting the
highway engineering establishment. It must be assured that sidewalks
would also be built here and other expressways if any lane additions
are to occur. If not, pedestrians would be forced to walk in the
traffic lane.
It should also be noted that despite County policy supporting
sidewalks where development occurs by having the developer pay for
it, this policy is routinely ignored. The most recent example is on
San Tomas north of Walsh. Pedestrians are allowed here because the
City Council allowed them at our request (in 1988), yet people must
still walk in the traffic lane because shrubbery was planted along
the roadway this month instead of using some of that space for a
sidewalk or even a “dirt” pedestrian path.
• (p 147): VTA has recommended additional expressway studies. It
is hoped that pedestrians and bicyclists would be included. All
expressways allow bicycles and most allow pedestrians. The reason for
prohibiting bicycles and pedestrians for 20 years was entirely
political on the part of the County highway engineers: they did not
want to use any of their roadway budget on other than moving motor
vehicles. Their solution was to post “bicycles and pedestrians
prohibited” signs on the road, despite the fact most violated
State law. Most pedestrians on Montague and Central Expy. are
actually transit patrons going to/from work. With the increasing
companies that are on or near an expressway, and unavailability of
alternative routes due to the hierarchical street pattern, it is even
important to consider them.
For a history of the fight for pedestrians, bicyclists, streetcars
and electric trains in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties (opposed were
traffic engineers, highway engineers and General Motors Corp.),
see
moderntransit.org/ctc/
Sincerely,
Akos Szoboszlay
President