I have recently moved to Silicon Valley for a new job, and until I’ve passed a trial period I will not have access to my car. This means that I have to rely on mass transit from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and I can’t wait to stop depending on it.
First of all, the system is highly unreliable. On my very first day of work, the light rail I took suddenly stopped working and we all had to get off. I fortunately left early enough so I still got at the orientation on time – otherwise I would have needed to wait another week.
As for buses in general, their reliability is iffy. They should theoretically all have a vocal system that tells passengers when major stops are coming. But this morning (before sunrise) I hopped inside a bus that didn’t have such a system and I nearly missed my stop because I couldn’t see much outside.
Their cleanliness also leaves to be desired. While the fleet is being renovated, many old buses with worn-out seats, sticky poles from worn-out warning stickers and windows that can hardly be opened still run and make the commute a forgettable one.
No Incentives to Improve?
Why does the VTA, and public mass transit in general, seem to always be so terrible?
One possible answer could be its source of financing. According to their 2016 annual report, only 8.5 percent of all revenues ($36.1 million) come from rider fares. Over 85 percent of the revenues ($360 million) come directly from either taxes or government funds/programs.
In other words, the VTA has little accountability over its funds and how it spends them. Hell, it was even able to have voters agree on Measure B last November, which will bring an additional $6 billion for the next 30 years. This project will, among others, be used to extend the BART transit (with direct connections to Oakland through Fremont) to downtown San Jose by six miles. The $4.7 billion project will extend a previous project started in 2012, which extended the BART by 10 miles for an initial cost estimates of $2.3 billion.
If you do the math, the BART project will end up costing at least $437.5 million per mile of rail. Is this really the most efficient way to spend taxpayer money? Especially when considering that ridership is decreasing?
Competition Already Improves Transit
Indeed, ridership decreased 8.9 percent in 2016. One of the main reasons – and VTA recognizes them as desirable since they “contribute to reducing congestion and solo driving” – is the increase in ridesharing services and corporate shuttles.
Corporate shuttles in particular are desirable since the said corporations bear all the risks of operating these buses. They may or may not be profitable – I heard that there is a small fee to ride – but at least taxpayers don’t have to bear the cost.
Imagine if this private initiative were extended to a larger scale. No, it’s not a utopian dream; it exists elsewhere in the world. The three largest cities in Japan have their mass transit operating from mostly private companies, and their efficiency is indisputable: not a single derailment in 50 years (by 2011) of operation and a mere 18-second delay average in 2007.
Considering that Japan sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire – where frequent earthquakes happen – Silicon Valley would do well to learn from the Country of the Rising Sun. This way infrastructure would be both suited for “the big one” geologists are waiting for and free of taxpayer money that encourages wasteful spending.