The Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal recently released an article and an editorial about the El Camino Real BRT Project. Both require subscriptions to access the entire content.
The article concerns the effect that Sunnyvale’s council decision has on the planning process for BRT on El Camino Real, noting that the absence of Sunnyvale’s support for dedicated lanes combined with their geographical location in the center of the corridor make dedicated lanes outside of Santa Clara unlikely.
The editorial supports improving mass transportation as a way to address growing automobile congestion and focuses on the Sunnyvale BRT decision as an example of local politics holding back a worthwhile regional transit project.
Interestingly, both pieces present the El Camino Real BRT project in the context of a congestion alleviation strategy. The article features a quote from Sunnyvale Councilmember Dave Whittum who states that the BRT project was not among the city’s “traffic congestion priorities.” The editorial cites congestion reduction as a reason to support improved transit. While improving transit can be an effective strategy to address traffic congestion in certain cases, the notion that the purpose of the El Camino Real BRT project is to reduce congestion is not accurate. The editorial author and councilmember are not alone in this misperception. Several members of the public and elected officials have made similar statements to us over the past two years.
It’s true that some riders are projected to switch from autos to BRT with the project, but it’s also the case that the project would remove an auto lane from El Camino Real–not exactly a congestion-reducing move. In fact, our computer transportation model projects that the reduction of one-third of the auto capacity on El Camino Real would cause some drivers who would have used El Camino Real to opt for other, faster routes if a dedicated lane were installed. The end result is that traffic congestion in a dedicated lane configuration–measured in terms of seconds of delay at intersections–wouldn’t change much as the two-thirds of drivers who stay on El Camino Real would fit the two-thirds of the auto capacity that would remain.
The merit of the project, as VTA has presented it, is in the transit and bicycle improvements which provide better mobility options on a vibrant corridor. Increasing transit speeds with the addition of a dedicated lane moves people faster, increases ridership, lowers operating costs, improves fare-box recovery and improves on-time arrivals. The transit improvement and the addition of bicycle lanes attract some folks away from driving which reduces vehicle miles traveled and improves air quality.
So, it’s a bit odd that the prevailing narrative about the project is one of congestion alleviation. Are we naturally so auto-focused that the argument in favor of improving transit is based around the auto advantage? Or is increasing mobility options and improving the quality of a transit trip just not an appealing argument?
Yes, it’s very important to separate congestion from the benefits of transit. While in some cases transit does reduce congestion, there are innumerable other benefits to transit. Prominent transit planner Jarrett Walker summarized some of the most tangible congestion-related benefits in this blog post. He argues that these are the main congestion-related benefits of transit (paraphrased into my own words):
- While transit does not necessarily reduce congestion, it does provide transportation users an alternative to it; if they don’t want to deal with congestion they don’t have to if there is a good transit service that is protected from congestion.
- Transit enables people of all ages and economic backgrounds to participate in the economy by allowing them to access jobs and other urban opportunities, regardless of whether or not they have a car.
- Transit enables economic activity to expand without expanding congestion; i.e. there can be increased mobility without congestion becoming completely unbearable.
- Transit in exclusive lanes allows emergency vehicles to cut through congestion by making use of transit-only lanes rather than being stuck in a congested automobile lane.
Hi Matt,
Those are great points and the link to Jarrett’s blog post provides a great resource for this discussion.
There are a wealth of non-congestion arguments in favor of transit improvement, but, as this blog post mentions, these points seem to have difficulty gaining traction with the public and policy makers. It’s one thing to analyze projects academically, as you and Jarrett have done, but making those arguments relatable to decision makers and the public during the implementation process is a different challenge. Are there ways that you can think of to improve the understanding and appreciation of these transit benefits for folks who are primarily focused on autos?
Sunnyvale Charges ahead to 1940s Auto Dependency
Hi Margaret,
I read your article on BRT. I don’t understand how creating a mini freeway for busses on El Camino will reduce the carbon footprint.
Why aren’t the bus routes along the freeway?
I don’t understand why the dream you have can’t be implemented with the existing Rapid bus system.
Why aren’t the lights timed for all ridership?
Didn’t Mt. View refuse this too? What other cities have refused this plan?
It seems to me that taking away two traffic lanes will create more pollution due to slow downs and increased traffic jams.
It seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to the BRT like creating a traffic right of way similar to the RR right of way.
This in turn may lead to a re-invented transit system like Personal Rapid Transit but this idea is a dead end.
There was a woman who had thanked Sunnyvale Community services for fixing her car and alleviating her from 4 hours per day of VTA ridership.
She could use this time for her children and her job.
How often do you use the Bus?
It is a good idea to improve and re-invent the Public Transit but this is not it.
Thank You for trying to find a way to better our lives.
Tommy Carrig