Viewpoint ■ EDITORIAL
THE OPINION OF THE VOICE
Mass transit’s uncertain future
Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
■ S TA F F Publisher Tom Gibboney
Editorial Managing Editor Don Frances Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt, Kelsey Mesher Intern Ellen Huet Photographer Michelle Le Photo Intern James Tensuan Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Jennifer Pence, Monica Schreiber
Design & Production Design Director Raul Perez Designers Linda Atilano, Laura Don, Gary Vennarucci
Advertising Advertising Representatives Anna Mirsky, Brent Triantos Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz Real Estate Advertising Coordinator Diane Martin Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 E-mail news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com E-mail letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales (650) 964-6490 • (650) 326-8216 fax (650) 326-0155 E-mail Classified ads@MV-Voice.com E-mail Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome. Copyright ©2010 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
■ WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum.
TOWN SQUARE FORUM POST your views on the Town Square forum at www.MountainViewOnline.com E-MAIL your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if it is a letter to be published. MAIL to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405 CALL the Viewpoint desk at 964-6300
14
T
wo things happened last week that got us thinking about the future of mass transit on the Peninsula. First, Caltrain announced that within a year it will have to drastically reduce service due to a continuing budget crisis. Second, a company called Unimodal, based at Moffett Field, gave the Voice a look at its futuristic people-movers: automated pods which glide over an electrified network, and which the company wants to bring to Mountain View. Unimodal’s system, dubbed “SkyTran,” would not replace the aging heavy rail commuter trains operated by Caltrain. But it does seem to offer a viable solution to moving people from a mainline terminal to various destinations, and at a relatively low cost. Unimodal said it can build its system for $10 million a mile, compared to the $100 million-a-mile cost of installing light rail. Better yet, the company says, whatever city agrees to allow the first-ever SkyTran system will get it for free, as investors allegedly are eager to launch a network to demonstrate its abilities. Assuming this is true, Mountain View seems like the perfect location for such a test, given its layout, its high ratio of workers, and the fact that the City Council already has approved the general concept of a so-called personal rapid transit, or PRT, system. For years the city has been searching for a better way to get people from the downtown transit center — site of Caltrain’s busy Mountain View station — to the Shoreline area, where thousands of people come and go, at all hours, due the hightech businesses there. The answer could be Unimodal, which envisions a network from Moffett to Shoreline to downtown Mountain View, possibly continuing on to the San Jose Airport, with several smaller branches where commuters can hop into a waiting pod. But even at its current cost per mile, a proposed 8.5-mile route would be $130 million, money the city obviously does not have. So the question becomes: Will investors really cover that amount, and if so, will the system be worth it? For better or worse, Caltrain’s fate is not moot to this discussion. Many thousands of commuters arrive on its trains every day, coming from San Francisco, San Jose or points between to the downtown station, where they grab a shuttle for Google or some other high-tech employer. Caltrain’s proposed cuts would have a huge impact on people who rely on its current flexibility, such as it is, to get to or from work throughout the day, not to mention baseball games or other activities. But unless Caltrain finds $30 million somewhere, all weekend lines could be eliminated by 2011, and the system would sit idle every midday and late evening during the week. That means more of today’s Caltrain commuters will be forced to take their cars instead — bypassing any fancy new transit system entirely as they clog Shoreline Boulevard on their way to work. For these and other reasons, we sincerely hope Caltrain will not have to wipe out the many crucial services now on its chopping block. To avoid that fate, Mountain View and other cities served by Caltrain should do everything they can to keep it running on its current schedule, seven days a week.
■ MOUNTAIN VIEW VOICE ■ APRIL 9, 2010
■ EDITORIAL ■ YOUR LETTERS ■ GUEST OPINIONS
■ TOWNSQUARE
VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CALTRAIN SERVICE CUTS I want good Caltrain service (though I’m not a commuter) but Caltrain cannot operate without subsidies — its fares pay for only 40 percent of its operating costs, according to the article. Multiplying fares by 2.5 will not get to 100 percent of operating costs because fewer people would ride. Cutting costs by reducing service will not solve the problem because there will be fewer riders. Making Caltrain more efficient, e.g. by electrifying the trains, takes even more money, though it might eventually pay for itself in reduced energy costs. Caltrain needs to have its subsidies restored. That may happen in a few years, but doesn’t help today. Caltrain will do what it has to do. I’m sure I will not like it any more than they do. Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood Let the whole stupid train system fall. Here is a classic example of government waste. We spend jillions on public transportation that very few people use. We are not Europe! Spend on things that Americans need. Forget the train system and put the money in the schools’ math and science programs. David Craig, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood Caltrain, like all public transportation, is never going to be 100 percent full or perfect. However, every person on Caltrain takes a car off the road. It increases our green footprint. It
cuts down on overcrowding. It is a practical method of public transportation. It should be (nearly) 100 percent funded by gas taxes. People should be encouraged, by all means possible, to take the train. Our gas tax situation is abysmal. We have some of the lowest gas taxes in the world yet use the most gasoline. Our infrastructure is in poor shape and a small increase in gas taxes could begin paying for repair. How about $2 a gallon state tax as a good beginning? James Thurber, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood Peninsula residents, one of the wealthiest and most ostentatiously “green” populations in the country and the quickest to demand sacrifices from the less enlightened for the sake of the environment, should be packing the trains throughout the day. Fare revenues would then be helping to mitigate Caltrain’s deficit. But let the price of riding the train become uncompetitive with driving, and the cry goes up for more taxation to keep fares low. By design, I’ve lived within five miles of my work for the past 20 years. It required trade-offs, the cost of which I absorbed. I make relatively little money by mid-Peninsula standards, but I pay plenty in taxes. Why should I pay even more in taxes so that someone making $150,000 a year can work in S.F. and live in Mountain View, but not have to pay the cost of the living and working choices they made? RDM, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood