As usual, when a new light rail line opens, there's will be changes to bus routes as well. Mostly likely it would involve shortening long trunk bus routes coming from downtowns to the nearest new light rail stations, and the rest filled by short feeder bus routes between the new light rail stations and the neighborhoods.
When the Tasman East/Capitol light rail opened last year in Milpitas, lines 70 and 71, long mainline bus routes connecting East San Jose and Milpitas, were both shortened at the north end at the Great Mall light rail station. Services in Milpitas were then replaced by short feeder bus routes 46 and 47. The replacement services are less frequent and with shorter operating hours than 70 and 71.
For a trip that took only one bus trip between these two neighborhoods now takes two, in addition to the transfer penalty, it also increased the fares for riders without monthly passes. Passengers now either have to pay twice on the one way fares or buy day passes.
On the other hand, similar proposals were presented to Los Gatos for the opening of the Vasona extension scheduled in August, but the wealthy folks in Los Gatos would get a much sweeter deal.
Under the current service plan for July 2005, lines 60 and 62, both long mainline bus routes, would be shortened at the south end at the Winchester light rail station and Good Samaritan Hospital respectively. Services to the south would replaced by new feeder routes 48 and 49 from the Winchester light rail station.
Unlike the services in Milpitas, both routes 48 and 49 would be as frequent and would have a similar operating hours as the mainline bus routes (all night services to and from Los Gatos end at about 9:00pm currently). The best of all, however, is that these feeder services would be FREE for everyone!
Can't you see what's wrong? People of color and lower income in Milpitas and East San Jose faced de facto service deterioration with feeder services that are less frequent, have shorter service span, and are more expensive than the previous mainline services. Meanwhile primarily white residents in million dollar homes would receive free feeder services to Light Rail that would be as frequent as the mainline services.
While VTA would try to justify free and more frequent service in Los Gatos because of the smaller buses that would be operated by private firms, VTA is nonetheless providing unequal treatment. Milpitas and East San Jose has a much larger minority and lower income population than in Los Gatos.
Where do the Milpitas and San Jose politicians stand on this? It seems that they are okay about the unequal treatment as long as they get the stupid BART extension through in the next 20 to 30 years. For them, an expensive rail system that is even more expensive for their constituents to ride would sure make things right!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Guardino's flip-floping
Guardino is no transportation expert, but just another pseudo-politician whose opinion is based on the direction of the wind.
In a recent Gilroy Dispatch article. You can see his flop-fliping in action.
At first, the article mentioned a recent poll by SVLG that argued that voters all over the county favor BART more than any other transit projects. Laura Stuchinsky of SVLG was quoted on the paper defending its poll: "I think a lot of folks in the county who won't have BART coming to their doorstep recognize it will be a service that will benefit the entire region."
If SVLG's intent is not to play favorism, to pick fights, or to try to defund other projects to support BART, then why are they asking for voter preference over false choices? SVLG has been saying recently that BART should be the priority because of voter preference based on the poll SVLG has conducted.
When Don Gage, a VTA director and a County Supervisor representing the south county said in the article that there are real trade-offs for BART versus other transportation improvements in the South County, Guardino flip-floped and said: "We think it's false choice to say 'it's either or' when."
Earlier they said BART over everything else, later they said that they're not trying to pick a project as a priority, classic flip-flopping!
The most ridiculous part is that Guardino is saying that other projects could get by through trimming: Guardino said that light rail improvements budgeted at $1 billion could be accomplished for $250 million if done efficiently.
So what about BART? Has SVLG ever supported measures to cut costs on BART, such as build the extension in phases, or keep more of the line on surface, or cut the the appendage from San Jose to Santa Clara that would parallel Caltrain, ACE, and Capitol Corridor (three regional rail services!!!)? Instead they've been lying about the costs ($7 billion vs. $4 billion), condoned VTA to lie about the existence of financing costs, and supported VTA to say no to the federal government's request for a real study. If SVLG thinks that others could do more with less funding, why did SVLG do just the opposite with BART?
In a recent Gilroy Dispatch article. You can see his flop-fliping in action.
At first, the article mentioned a recent poll by SVLG that argued that voters all over the county favor BART more than any other transit projects. Laura Stuchinsky of SVLG was quoted on the paper defending its poll: "I think a lot of folks in the county who won't have BART coming to their doorstep recognize it will be a service that will benefit the entire region."
If SVLG's intent is not to play favorism, to pick fights, or to try to defund other projects to support BART, then why are they asking for voter preference over false choices? SVLG has been saying recently that BART should be the priority because of voter preference based on the poll SVLG has conducted.
When Don Gage, a VTA director and a County Supervisor representing the south county said in the article that there are real trade-offs for BART versus other transportation improvements in the South County, Guardino flip-floped and said: "We think it's false choice to say 'it's either or' when."
Earlier they said BART over everything else, later they said that they're not trying to pick a project as a priority, classic flip-flopping!
The most ridiculous part is that Guardino is saying that other projects could get by through trimming: Guardino said that light rail improvements budgeted at $1 billion could be accomplished for $250 million if done efficiently.
So what about BART? Has SVLG ever supported measures to cut costs on BART, such as build the extension in phases, or keep more of the line on surface, or cut the the appendage from San Jose to Santa Clara that would parallel Caltrain, ACE, and Capitol Corridor (three regional rail services!!!)? Instead they've been lying about the costs ($7 billion vs. $4 billion), condoned VTA to lie about the existence of financing costs, and supported VTA to say no to the federal government's request for a real study. If SVLG thinks that others could do more with less funding, why did SVLG do just the opposite with BART?
Sunday, May 15, 2005
The big fat Mercury lie
"BART's latest extension, to San Francisco's airport, has had disappointing ridership compared with projections -- but even so, it's carrying nearly as many riders per day as the whole Caltrain line from Gilroy to San Francisco."
This is a big fat lie that the Congress deserves to know.
You can see for yourself here:
SamTrans ridership report on BART - read page 4
Caltrain ridership report - read page 3
For a fair comparison, you should also subtract Colma from the total ridership without Daly City, since the Colma station has been in operation since 1996, 7 years earlier than the entire SFO extension. Also, number of including Daly City is not comparible since the Daly City station has been in operation for over 30 years and half of the service area around the station belongs to San Francisco.
March 2005
21,638 BART extension (SSF, SB, SFIA, Millbrae)
29,118 Caltrain
The number is not even close, even with Colma added.
Also, the BART numbers most likely include boarding and exiting. It would be fair if riders are coming from stations outside the county, which is primarily the case, but riders traveling within the county would get double counted.
As much as the Mercury News editors and Guardino/SVLG like to put it, the issue is not about vision, but how to get to the vision. These folks don't have enough experience with mass transit to know what is really needed. They could sit in their cars for 15 to 30 years for a "vision" to be realized, and afterwards they'll still be stuck in their cars.
People who ride transit today cannot afford to wait 15-30 years. If a 10% improvement in the quality of service could be delivered next year, and for years after that until the "vision" realized, they'll take that instead. Caltrain is basically the latter, an incremental improvement to become a rapid transit system.
Looking back in the ridership numbers. Caltrain was able to deliver a 12% ridership increase in one year in a slumping economy without additional operating subsidy. BART could not have delivered that.
This is a big fat lie that the Congress deserves to know.
You can see for yourself here:
SamTrans ridership report on BART - read page 4
Caltrain ridership report - read page 3
For a fair comparison, you should also subtract Colma from the total ridership without Daly City, since the Colma station has been in operation since 1996, 7 years earlier than the entire SFO extension. Also, number of including Daly City is not comparible since the Daly City station has been in operation for over 30 years and half of the service area around the station belongs to San Francisco.
March 2005
21,638 BART extension (SSF, SB, SFIA, Millbrae)
29,118 Caltrain
The number is not even close, even with Colma added.
Also, the BART numbers most likely include boarding and exiting. It would be fair if riders are coming from stations outside the county, which is primarily the case, but riders traveling within the county would get double counted.
As much as the Mercury News editors and Guardino/SVLG like to put it, the issue is not about vision, but how to get to the vision. These folks don't have enough experience with mass transit to know what is really needed. They could sit in their cars for 15 to 30 years for a "vision" to be realized, and afterwards they'll still be stuck in their cars.
People who ride transit today cannot afford to wait 15-30 years. If a 10% improvement in the quality of service could be delivered next year, and for years after that until the "vision" realized, they'll take that instead. Caltrain is basically the latter, an incremental improvement to become a rapid transit system.
Looking back in the ridership numbers. Caltrain was able to deliver a 12% ridership increase in one year in a slumping economy without additional operating subsidy. BART could not have delivered that.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Faux debate on BART - Unfair and unbalanced
The Commonwealth Club, along with the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State, California State Automobile Association, and SVLG, will host a forum on BART on the afternoon of April 21 at the County building. Supposedly Greg Perry of Mountain View was invited to serve as a panelist along with Cindy Chavez of San Jose, Carl Guardino of SVLG and Dennis Kennedy of Morgan Hill.
Guardino is obviously a strong supporter of that project and SVLG is bring Chavez along to prep her to become another Gonzales. Kennedy is opposed to the project but is nowhere close compared to Perry when it comes to the knowledge about VTA and the project.
Rod Diridon Sr., who got a nice job being the director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, recently removed Perry off the panel for some reason. Bay Rail Alliance and VTA Riders Union wrote letters to complain. It is no surprise that Diridon kicked Perry out because Diridon is afraid of Perry telling the truth behind the BART project. Diridon replaced with a token opposition Ron Swegles of Sunnyvale to make themselves look good.
Apparently, as reported in the ba.transportation newsgroup, the executive director of the Commonwealth Club - Gloria Duffy, is the wife of Rod Diridon. So no phone calls need to make that work, just some pillow talk!
Guardino is obviously a strong supporter of that project and SVLG is bring Chavez along to prep her to become another Gonzales. Kennedy is opposed to the project but is nowhere close compared to Perry when it comes to the knowledge about VTA and the project.
Rod Diridon Sr., who got a nice job being the director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, recently removed Perry off the panel for some reason. Bay Rail Alliance and VTA Riders Union wrote letters to complain. It is no surprise that Diridon kicked Perry out because Diridon is afraid of Perry telling the truth behind the BART project. Diridon replaced with a token opposition Ron Swegles of Sunnyvale to make themselves look good.
Apparently, as reported in the ba.transportation newsgroup, the executive director of the Commonwealth Club - Gloria Duffy, is the wife of Rod Diridon. So no phone calls need to make that work, just some pillow talk!
Friday, April 08, 2005
VTA trying to cheat the system
VTA is trying to have things both ways: phase the project without phasing it.
VTA is splitting the BART project into two segments. The first segment is from Warm Springs to Berryessa, and the second segment is the stupid downtown subway and a portion that parallels Caltrain to Santa Clara. VTA plans to submit the first portion for federal funding and leave the second portion be locally and state funded.
Basically by putting the first portion to be federally funded. The cost for the federal funded portion would be smaller and thus appear more cost effective. VTA also plans to request a smaller amount, about $500 million or so, first the first segment. Since the second portion would not be federally funded, VTA could spend as much as it wants and screw cost effectiveness.
But the interesting thing to the story is that VTA intends to build both portions all at once.
Federalizing a portion of a greater project has been done before even in the Bay Area. For example, the Tasman light rail line, and the 3rd Street light rail and Central Subway in San Francisco. But the differences are that these projects, as their entirety, are more cost effective, and that they all were or to be built and planned in phases.
What VTA is trying to do is to cheat the federal government.
Aside from poor cost effectiveness and increased construction cost to VTA (due to the smaller federal funding request), VTA has cash flow problems for construction, as well as the lack of operating funds. If VTA were to build the BART project in phases, VTA's problem would be much less severe, and therefore VTA would likely argue for federalizing a segment based on these benefits. However, this is not VTA intends to do. VTA intends to build the whole project at once based on false benefits and with all the harms.
VTA could cut bus service to pay for the subway part of the project without federal oversight. Also, if cost overruns occur for the subway portion of the project, VTA could literally run out of funds and would not be able to produce matching funds for the federalized portion. Without checks and balances for the most expensive and unstable portion of the project, the foolish BART project would be another Bay Bridge East Span. Instead of a large fishing pier, it would be disconnected wide gauge track segments suitable for a train musesum displaying trains from India.
Carl Guardino of SVLG is quoted “With this innovative agreement the federal government has shown they know the answer to the 1960 song “Do You Know the Way to San Jose?” – it’s on a BART train, all the way to downtown San Jose, and onto Santa Clara.” May be he is actually talking about these trains without carrying any actual passengers.
I hope the federal government would see this crap right through.
VTA is splitting the BART project into two segments. The first segment is from Warm Springs to Berryessa, and the second segment is the stupid downtown subway and a portion that parallels Caltrain to Santa Clara. VTA plans to submit the first portion for federal funding and leave the second portion be locally and state funded.
Basically by putting the first portion to be federally funded. The cost for the federal funded portion would be smaller and thus appear more cost effective. VTA also plans to request a smaller amount, about $500 million or so, first the first segment. Since the second portion would not be federally funded, VTA could spend as much as it wants and screw cost effectiveness.
But the interesting thing to the story is that VTA intends to build both portions all at once.
Federalizing a portion of a greater project has been done before even in the Bay Area. For example, the Tasman light rail line, and the 3rd Street light rail and Central Subway in San Francisco. But the differences are that these projects, as their entirety, are more cost effective, and that they all were or to be built and planned in phases.
What VTA is trying to do is to cheat the federal government.
Aside from poor cost effectiveness and increased construction cost to VTA (due to the smaller federal funding request), VTA has cash flow problems for construction, as well as the lack of operating funds. If VTA were to build the BART project in phases, VTA's problem would be much less severe, and therefore VTA would likely argue for federalizing a segment based on these benefits. However, this is not VTA intends to do. VTA intends to build the whole project at once based on false benefits and with all the harms.
VTA could cut bus service to pay for the subway part of the project without federal oversight. Also, if cost overruns occur for the subway portion of the project, VTA could literally run out of funds and would not be able to produce matching funds for the federalized portion. Without checks and balances for the most expensive and unstable portion of the project, the foolish BART project would be another Bay Bridge East Span. Instead of a large fishing pier, it would be disconnected wide gauge track segments suitable for a train musesum displaying trains from India.
Carl Guardino of SVLG is quoted “With this innovative agreement the federal government has shown they know the answer to the 1960 song “Do You Know the Way to San Jose?” – it’s on a BART train, all the way to downtown San Jose, and onto Santa Clara.” May be he is actually talking about these trains without carrying any actual passengers.
I hope the federal government would see this crap right through.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
FTA's new recommendation and San Jose/VTA's response
FTA's recent letter expressed its intention to raise the cost effectiveness score to medium in order to receive federal funds.
This is the response from Gonzales on FTA's letter.
Essentially, FTA is saying that it needs a minimum of C grade to pass the class, and that Gonzales is protesting the shift because VTA is working hard to get a D grade.
If this project were cost effective, the change in minimum score should have no impact, just as a A grade student would pass the class no matter what.
In the past FTA has suggested VTA to phase the extension, a practice that all other transit agencies, including even VTA, for rail projects. Gonzales stubborness against phasing is one of the reasons why VTA is where it is right now in the eyes of FTA.
An article in today's Mercury News covered the story on the differences between FTA and VTA over the cost effectiveness score, and also covered SVLG's effort to get another sales tax passed. It is important to note that because SVLG is a sponsor of the tax, any polls done by that group is biased and is geared toward promoting the tax. SVLG's pollster will likely go over the pro-VTA tax talking points before getting a response whether to support or oppose.
Perhaps these arguments should make voters to think again:
-VTA over estimated BART ridership. For instance, BART extension to SFO opened in 2003 has far fewer riders than estimated, and required SamTrans, the local bus agency, to pay for BART operation.
-If VTA chose to phase the BART project at least to Milpitas and connect to light rail, there's no need for the tax increase for now and the initial phase would at least open 5 to 10 years earlier than if the project were to be built as a whole.
-The Santa Clara county Grand Jury found VTA as unaccountable and needs reform.
-Caltrain's Baby Bullet has already achieved a service and speed that BART cannot match, and it costs pennies to the dollar on construction and operation compared to BART.
More talking points later...
This is the response from Gonzales on FTA's letter.
Essentially, FTA is saying that it needs a minimum of C grade to pass the class, and that Gonzales is protesting the shift because VTA is working hard to get a D grade.
If this project were cost effective, the change in minimum score should have no impact, just as a A grade student would pass the class no matter what.
In the past FTA has suggested VTA to phase the extension, a practice that all other transit agencies, including even VTA, for rail projects. Gonzales stubborness against phasing is one of the reasons why VTA is where it is right now in the eyes of FTA.
An article in today's Mercury News covered the story on the differences between FTA and VTA over the cost effectiveness score, and also covered SVLG's effort to get another sales tax passed. It is important to note that because SVLG is a sponsor of the tax, any polls done by that group is biased and is geared toward promoting the tax. SVLG's pollster will likely go over the pro-VTA tax talking points before getting a response whether to support or oppose.
Perhaps these arguments should make voters to think again:
-VTA over estimated BART ridership. For instance, BART extension to SFO opened in 2003 has far fewer riders than estimated, and required SamTrans, the local bus agency, to pay for BART operation.
-If VTA chose to phase the BART project at least to Milpitas and connect to light rail, there's no need for the tax increase for now and the initial phase would at least open 5 to 10 years earlier than if the project were to be built as a whole.
-The Santa Clara county Grand Jury found VTA as unaccountable and needs reform.
-Caltrain's Baby Bullet has already achieved a service and speed that BART cannot match, and it costs pennies to the dollar on construction and operation compared to BART.
More talking points later...
Sunday, March 27, 2005
VTA's new buses and more
Appeared on the March 30 agenda is a recommendation to approve the purchase of smaller buses. VTA plans to initially purchase 5 28-foot buses through the state's contract.
Also on the agenda is a resolution to oppose the closure of College Park Caltrain station, as well as a decision on the San Jose Grand Prix. The map of the new race course is included in the packet.
The two last minute resolutions on the College Park and the Grand Prix were submitted in the same "SJ Council/VTA board members' memo to the board" manner, essentially locking in five votes on the board.
Also on the agenda is a resolution to oppose the closure of College Park Caltrain station, as well as a decision on the San Jose Grand Prix. The map of the new race course is included in the packet.
The two last minute resolutions on the College Park and the Grand Prix were submitted in the same "SJ Council/VTA board members' memo to the board" manner, essentially locking in five votes on the board.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
Palo Alto's City Council voted to oppose the VTA's proposed sales tax increase. It is good that Palo Alto is seriously considering the impact of the proposed sales tax increase and the benefits they would, or would not be getting.
Five years ago the same council supported the original Measure A. Sandy Eakins, a member of the PA's City Council at that time, sold herself to the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and was a strong advocate for the sale tax plan. During a VTA special board meeting on August 9, 2000, when VTA was about the place Measure A sales tax on the ballot, Eakins moved to amend the language of Measure A to include funding to study a BART extension from Santa Clara (where the original proposal ends) to Palo Alto. She did so after hearing a suggestion from her colleague at work!
Why is Palo Alto getting screwed in the 2000 Measure A? It is because of poor representation at the time when the plan was drafted. Instead of evaluating the project list seriously and negotiating a plan that ensures regional equity. Its representive choose to accept a fantasy idea from her colleague! It was a good thing that the voters kicked her out of the council in 2001.
VTA thought that they could go back to the council with the same lame plan and hope that some confused members would get fooled again, but not this time.
Five years ago the same council supported the original Measure A. Sandy Eakins, a member of the PA's City Council at that time, sold herself to the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and was a strong advocate for the sale tax plan. During a VTA special board meeting on August 9, 2000, when VTA was about the place Measure A sales tax on the ballot, Eakins moved to amend the language of Measure A to include funding to study a BART extension from Santa Clara (where the original proposal ends) to Palo Alto. She did so after hearing a suggestion from her colleague at work!
Why is Palo Alto getting screwed in the 2000 Measure A? It is because of poor representation at the time when the plan was drafted. Instead of evaluating the project list seriously and negotiating a plan that ensures regional equity. Its representive choose to accept a fantasy idea from her colleague! It was a good thing that the voters kicked her out of the council in 2001.
VTA thought that they could go back to the council with the same lame plan and hope that some confused members would get fooled again, but not this time.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
VTA to restart its restructuring committee
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005
Time: 4:00 PM
Location: County Government Center 10th Floor Conference Room 70 West Hedding Street San Jose
Time: 4:00 PM
Location: County Government Center 10th Floor Conference Room 70 West Hedding Street San Jose
Monday, March 14, 2005
Gilroy Caltrain service spared for now
Despite the current budget crisis Caltrain is facing, Caltrain plans to keep the Gilroy service pretty much as it is for now.
Caltrain Joint Powers Board held a budget workshop earlier today, and presented revenue increasing and cost cutting measures. Instead of massive service cuts, as VTA has done to its service over the last few years, Caltrain is suggesting adding more popular Baby Bullet service, as well as a fare increase.
During the budget presentation, the staff argued to keep the Gilroy service, despite its low ridership and excess train capacity, because of the high level of fares collected. The JPB staff also argued and that cutting the service would result in relatively small savings. However it appears that the JPB staff included the total fare paid by Gilroy riders (beyond the Gilroy-South San Jose zones) in its calculation of revenue generated by the Gilroy service.
Let's see how serious VTA is regarding the Gilroy service and whether it is going to do anything to improve the ridership on that line.
Caltrain Joint Powers Board held a budget workshop earlier today, and presented revenue increasing and cost cutting measures. Instead of massive service cuts, as VTA has done to its service over the last few years, Caltrain is suggesting adding more popular Baby Bullet service, as well as a fare increase.
During the budget presentation, the staff argued to keep the Gilroy service, despite its low ridership and excess train capacity, because of the high level of fares collected. The JPB staff also argued and that cutting the service would result in relatively small savings. However it appears that the JPB staff included the total fare paid by Gilroy riders (beyond the Gilroy-South San Jose zones) in its calculation of revenue generated by the Gilroy service.
Let's see how serious VTA is regarding the Gilroy service and whether it is going to do anything to improve the ridership on that line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
