The delusional and the chickened rule VTA

From today's BayRail Alliance Announcement:

1) VTA Board approves BART preliminary engineering contracts

After a somber and extended discussion, in which several of the VTA board members expressed concerns about the BART project and suggested that VTA study alternatives, the board voted 9-2 to approve the preliminary engineering contracts. Councilmember Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss voted No.

We're disappointed with this outcome. The overwhelming majority of the public testimony they received was against spending more on BART. Margaret Okuzumi was interviewed by both KRON 4 and NBC 11. Please look for her appearance on the 6 o'clock news tonight. She was also interviewed (in English) by Sing Tao Chinese Radio.

Supervisor Kniss repeatedly mentioned the cost overruns of Boston's "Big Dig" -- a project that was originally priced at $4 B and is now priced at $16 Billion -- and expressed concern over the construction risks of tunneling. "I say we're on the wrong track with these precious transit dollars," said Kniss. Among other concerns, she noted BART doesn't yet connect to the county line.

This fight isn't over -- VTA will be putting a measure on the ballot in 2008 to obtain more taxes for the BART project. If that tax is defeated, then the VTA board will be forced to consider superior rail alternatives that don't require a new tax.

Meanwhile, please thank Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss for their No vote.

The rest who support these contracts fall under two categories: delusional and chickened. Members like Cindy Chavez and Forrest Williams clearly fall under the delusional category, for being beholden to the South Bay Labor Council and the construction unions. Members like Don Gage and Breene Kerr fall under the chickened category. They knew that the BART extension as planned is infeasible and will hurt their constitutents, but they were too chickened to vote no because they were too chickened to be the ones that kill the BART extension. They would prefer someone else to do this tough job.

The 2008 Measure A campaign has begun.

To Mr. Burns: Please stop destroying transit

In a Mercury News article today, VTA General Manager Michael Burns tries to justify the BART design contracts despite the lack of operating funds:

"We can make the argument that we can build the system,'' Burns said, "but we clearly do not have the money to operate the system. We need to come to a decision point on this over the next 18 months or two years.''

To Mr. Burns: Please stop using coded words that people like Carl Guardino can understand. Fortunately, BayRail Alliance executive director Margaret Okuzumi translate the phase into layperson's term:

Any VTA board member who votes for this is essentially saying they want VTA to put another tax on the ballot in 2008, and is presuming that such a ballot measure will be successful.

Also to Mr. Burns: Bad transit hurts all transit. The BART extension was ill-conceived and underfunded since 2000. Last June, voters clearly rejected to pay more taxes into this transit black-hole. This "stay the course" BART policy will only further erode voter confidence on VTA and all mass transit. Why would voters support transit in the future when the signature VTA project will bankrupt VTA, destroy bus service, and fail to meet ridership projection?

A big Christmas gift for VTA consultants?

For VTA, the quickest way to waste public funds is to spend more money on consultants. On December 14 (9:00am), the VTA board will decide whether to approve a series of contract amendments on the engineering and design work for the BART extension worth over $100 million in total.

Earlier last month, the Transit Planning and Operations committee submitted these items to the board without issuing a recommendation.

VTA's problem is that it cannot afford to build the BART extension with the funds it has. VTA's plan requires a new sales tax, which voters clearly rejected last June. If these contracts were approved without additional taxes to fund construction, the end-product would be just engineering and design materials, unable to carry any passengers anywhere.

Instead, VTA should start a fresh review on all VTA projects, without the negative and idiotic influence from Ron Gonzales, and immediately begin real improvements like a direct express bus line between Fremont and downtown San Jose, which was approved six years ago for not building a commuter rail connection to BART.

If the VTA board doesn't want to place a new tax on the ballot and let the voters decide, the VTA board should not approve these contracts and extort money from taxpayers.

Downtown San Jose businesses: let's screw transit riders

Last week, VTA staff has approved a temporary relocation plan for bus stops on 1st and 2nd streets in preparation for the platform retrofit at the Santa Clara light rail station, according to sources at VTA.

The Santa Clara light rail station is scheduled to be closed on January 2nd and the bus stops will be relocated on the north side of Santa Clara Street to make room for construction. The construction will take approximately five months.

The downtown businesses nearby are lobbying VTA to make these relocations permanent: the bus stops will remain on the north side of Santa Clara Street after the light rail station reopens. The businesses apparently believe the bus stops are a nuisance and attract a "wrong" crowd.

On the other hand, the Santa Clara light rail station is the major transit center in the entire county. If the plan becomes permanent, it will sever the cross platform connection (as originally intended) between light rail and many of the major bus lines. It will also make transfers, made by thousands of riders daily, difficult and confusing.

The downtown businesses aren't interested in having a sustainable and socially just VTA, and they don't mind screwing everyday transit riders.

A new day

With the election of Chuck Reed as the mayor of San Jose, let's hope that it is the end of Gonzales-style backroom politics and last-minute memos at VTA.

Pay to play at VTA with Chair and SJ mayoral candidate Cindy Chavez

From SV411 blog, and published in San Jose Metro:

"Why did Connecticut developer Republic Holdings Corporation drop $50,000 into the Democratic party’s coffers on September 5?..." (which that committee supports Chavez's bid for mayor)

"Those generous individuals at Republic also contributed $5500 directly to Chavez’s mayoral campaign. A half-dozen nicely synchronized checks showed up at the end of April..."

"Documents show that Cindy Chavez met with a developer a day before the Valley Transit Authority committee she chairs approved its project and seven weeks before the firm donated $50,000 to the Democratic Central Committee’s United Democratic Campaign..."

On July 20, a VTA Board Committee of the Whole approved the proposal from the Republic/Green Valley to redevelop the West San Carlos site, a site used for storage during the construction of the Vasona Light Rail extension. On August 3, the VTA board formally approved the proposal. Cindy Chavez is the Chair of the VTA board and has presided at both meetings.

The Gonzales style pay to play culture has occurred under Cindy Chavez's watch as the chair of VTA. What more could happen if she becomes the mayor of San Jose, which controls five votes on the VTA board?

Transit hypocrite SVLG tries to keep the BART extension on life support

Since the failure of Measure A BART sales tax on June 6, the SVLG continues to ignore reality and lobbies local political candidates to support the BART extension. Many political candidates in San Jose, have at least paid lip service to SVLG. Mayoral candidates Chuck Reed and Cindy Chavez said that they support the BART extension through downtown San Jose, as SVLG continues to press the issue in many of the candidate debates.

For most candidates with much more issues in the city at stake, the BART extension is a minor issue. They don't want to appear as a slightly weaker candidate by opposing a project sponsored by SVLG that would supposedly bring civic pride to San Jose.

However, many of them have not personally reviewed the budget, details of the project, and plans that would build a more efficient and effective transit system than the BART extension. Only until after the November election will reality set in.

With the loud and clear message from voters against more taxes for more of the same, there is no effective solution to backfill the capital and operating funding shortfall that amounts to billions. Prop 1b, if the voters approve, would only provide a fraction of what VTA needs, with most of the funding going to highways and transit projects elsewhere in the state. Private financing isn't enough to support subway construction when building heights, along with other factors, discourage urban development similar to downtown San Francisco. In addition, SVLG has opposed to any non-sales taxes that would force its member businesses in transit hostile areas to pay for BART, which SVLG claims they need. If SVLG could have its way, its members won't have to pay any sales tax for BART either.

SVLG should not be allowed to greenwash itself through their support of the deceptive San Jose BART extension. SVLG has done more harm to all transit by their support of the BART extension and other highway projects.

VTA Watch grades local transit

In light of the APTA convention in San Jose this week, VTA Watch would like to grade our local transit like Carl Guardino, John McLemore, Stuart Cohen, and Eugene Bradley that have appeared on Gary Richard's column.

After years of fare increases and service reductions, VTA should review and streamline the bus system to increase speed and convenience, while maintaining essential service to low-income communities. To be a sustainable agency, VTA should focus on making a system that is rider-oriented. VTA can't simply build more poorly planned rail lines that would attract riders far lower than advertised. VTA therefore deserves a C.

Caltrain on the other hand, has invented itself in the last two years with relatively little resources. For most part, Caltrain has been politically neglected. Many politicians, as well as groups like SVLG, believe that more funding should be diverted to building more BART than improving Caltrain. However, despite over a billion dollars have been spent on extending BART from Colma to Millbrae, the BART SFO extension has seen a 0.2% increase in ridership in August from last year, while Caltrain has seen a 13.4% increase.

Caltrain has many challenges. Caltrain can become a more efficient service with a more modern rolling stock. Caltrain needs to be more accessible for passengers in wheelchairs and in bicycles. Caltrain also should not continue to rely on diesel fuel, due to fluctuating fuel prices and pollution. Caltrain therefore deserves a B+.

VTA and the City of San Jose need more cooperation

Recently, bus reroute brochures have appeared on many buses traveling through downtown San Jose. These brochures describe the temporary rerouting for the Rock and Roll Half Marathon in Downtown San Jose on October 8. The event requires the temporary closure of The Alameda and Santa Clara Street, among others.

Unlike the rerouting information provided for the San Jose Grand Prix. These rerouting brochures only contain the reroute descriptions in text, with no maps and graphics, and are photocopied rather than printed.

It was reported that the VTA had no prior knowledge of this event until sometime early last week when one of the VTA staffers visited the Marathon's web site. The VTA staff quickly drafted a rerouting plan and made it available to the public.

Although VTA's quick action has prevented a possible transit meltdown on the morning of October 8, it also highlights that the City of San Jose, which hosts the event, needs to work with VTA to plan around special events and to help market transit to participants. The Rock and Roll Marathon's web site contains no information on VTA, despite the fact that the light rail and some of the bus routes start operating early on Sundays, well before the 7:55am start of the race. The Bay to Breakers, on the other hand, provides extensive information on access by public transit online.

Why is having SOV hybrids on HOV lanes a bad idea

For a lot of people, their reason for supporting SOV hybrid cars on HOV lanes is simple: HOV lane is not crowded, hybrid cars are good for the environment and use less gas, then awarding the use of HOV lane provides an incentive to purchase more hybrid cars.

The reality is that allowing SOV hybrid on carpool lanes, not only defeating the purpose of carpool lanes, but is also a very regressive way to promote sustainable transportation.

Caltrans recently reported that the HOV lanes in the state are more crowded since last year, when DMV began distributing HOV access stickers to hybrid cars. Although other reasons, like higher employment rate, may have also contributed to the crowded lanes, the impacts from SOV hybrids can be significant and cannot be overlooked. Carpool lanes in Virginia are also clogged as a result of allowing SOV hybrids into HOV lanes.

When the carpool lane is clogged, the travel time savings by carpooling or taking express buses diminish and commuters are more likely to drive alone. The HOV lanes will then fail to meet their goal: deliver a higher people throughput than SOV lanes.

Many people that have purchased a hybrid recently cited access to HOV lanes is one of the reasons for buying one. Basically for an $8 registration fee to the DMV, they will get an unlimited use HOV "pass." Unlike those who take the time and effort to form a carpool, hybrid drivers don't have to change any commuting behaviors. All they have to do is to go to a Toyota or a Honda dealer and get on the waiting list to buy a car.

Obviously there is an economic value for the buyer to drive on HOV lanes without having to carpool. Whatever that economic value is, the state isn't getting any of it with a nominal $8 registration fee. On the other hand, hybrid car makers/dealers are selling these vehicles at a premium without having to spend their money to promote them. The car makers/dealers are profiting at the public's expense.

Allowing SOV hybrids on HOV lanes is also regressive and makes these lanes the ultimate "Lexus lanes." Unlike high occupancy toll (HOT) lane system that allows everyone to pay a much lower one time fee to use the lanes, drivers must make a high upfront payment to either purchase or finance a hybrid car in order to receive unlimited access on HOV lanes. Such an high upfront cost to obtain a hybrid is simply too expensive for low income folks who could only afford a used non-hybrid car.

Unfortunately, once this perk is given away, it is hard to take it back with a growing "constituency" of hybrid owners. The VTA General Manager Michael Burns is one of them. He reportedly drives a VTA-issued Toyota Prius with HOV stickers.