High Speed Rail is dead

Rod Diridon, a member of the High Speed Rail board who helped to create the failed VTA light rail system, also helped kill High Speed Rail by selecting the Pacheco Pass route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley.

For now, there's no money or matching funds for High Speed Rail unless the High Speed Rail bond passes next November. Pacheco Pass supporters like Gavin Newsom say the selection of this alignment would allow the project would move forward. However, it would be delusional for people like him to think that they would get a united front to get voters to successfully pass the high speed rail bond.

Environmental groups have already expressed their opposition against the Pacheco Pass due to the environmental harm that would occur along that alignment. Cities along the northern part of Central Valley wanted the Altamont Pass that would serve their growing population. A selection of Pacheco Pass essentially is a slap on their face. Why would they campaign for something that they don't like, if they have not decided to campaign against the HSR bond altogether in light of that decision?

Pacheco Pass supporters argued that it provides the quickest travel time between the Bay Area and Southern California, which is only true between San Jose and Los Angeles, and the difference between the two alignments for San Jose is 10 minutes.

Pacheco Pass supporters also claimed that HSR is only supposed to provide transportation between Northern California and Southern California. This idea is delusional at best and dangerous at worst. Currently, airlines such as Southwest already provide a quick a affordable transportation option between the Bay Area and southern california. Why should billions of tax dollars go build something just to compete with the private sector? On the other hand, a well designed high speed rail can carry regional rail traffic, similar to the freeway carrying intercity passenger and cargo, as well as regional commute traffic. The ability of HSR carrying regional rail traffic would also attract votes because it would provide more benefits to more people who travel across regions everyday. In addition, HSR over the Altamont Pass would provide a new regional rail option between Stockton and San Jose without the BART extension.

Is it because HSR over the Altamont Pass would make the San Jose BART extension redundent the reason why Rod Diridon is so against Altamont Pass? If you look back history, Rod Diridon has a lot of undeserved credit related to the establishment and design of the light rail system. Diridon is one of the main reasons why our transit isn't working now and won't be.

Can Diridon and SVLG pass the HSR bond without the support of the environmental and rail advocacy community, who would otherwise be an natural ally? The well funded opposition is ready to campaign against any form of HSR and has already kill HSR in other states like Texas and Florida. In California, propositions to increase oil and cigarette taxes, despite their initial strong voter support, failed to pass all because of well funded opposition campaign.

It would be a great loss of opportunity to have a well designed HSR system that would transform the state, all because of Rod Diridon's boneheaded opposition to the Altamont Pass and giving up strong support from the environmental community.

VTA unveils new web site, federal New Starts agenda, and more

Web site

VTA has unveiled its new web site yesterday at 10:30am. The new web site features simpler navigation for some of the key areas, such as transit schedules. The bus schedules pages also feature full name of timepoints for easier reading. The URLs to individual routes and timetables remain the same.

Federal New Starts agenda

Hidden in the December 13 VTA Board meeting consent agenda is the agency's federal legislative agenda. A particularly interesting part deals with the New Starts program in which VTA intends to receive federal funds for the BART project.

An advocacy principle:

Ensuring that FRA is utilizing a multi-measure approach with regard to evaluating New Starts projects consistent with congressional intent, and not an approach under which a single criterion can determine a project's overall rating or whether it is recommended for funding.

The BART project simply is never going to meet certain key criteria, such as cost effectiveness. Therefore, VTA argues that this project deserves federal funds because of TOD potential and some other soft reasons and would like the FTA to place greater consideration instead of cost effectiveness.

Another advocacy principle:

Supporting modifications to the cost-effectiveness measure to: (a) reflect the benefits of the New Starts project for all users in the relevent transportation corridors, not just for public transit users; (b) account for differences in modes so as not to prejudice or bias the local alternatives analysis process; and (c) provide a true indication of what the federal investment in a particular New Starts project actually would buy by basing cost-effectiveness on the federal contribution to the project rather than on the total project cost.

Over the years, VTA expressed pride for having this project to be so called 80% state and locally funded, etc. VTA therefore thinks that it has the right to waste our tax money as it pleases. The federal requirements, especially in regards to cost effectiveness, is a important safeguard to ensure that limited transportation funding is not wasted on building a monument (or a bum magnet) for the San Jose Downtown Association.

Of course, some of these elements were carried over from the legislative agenda from past years. VTA currently cannot pursue New Starts funding because of its massive shortfall in local tax revenue, and cannot start until voters approve a new tax.

SamTrans not starting SFO shuttle or bus reroute

With BART planning to screw up the connection between Caltrain and SFO and wasting more tax money on running empty trains through South San Francisco and San Bruno in January. SamTrans, which once had control over the operation of the BART extension, says that it won't do anything to mitigate the loss of direct service.

Currently a 5 minute ride would turn into trip at least 10 minutes long with a transfer at San Bruno. On weeknights and Sundays, a trip from Millbrae to SFO would take 15 minutes longer due to timing of train connections at San Bruno.

SamTrans considered rerouting line 292, which goes from San Mateo to San Francisco via the airport, to serve the Millbrae Station. The line currently goes along the east side of the freeway between Burlingame and the airport. A realignment would require the bus to go across the freeway and back. SamTrans rejected the idea on the grounds of not wanting to impact existing passengers riding between Burlingame and the airport.

If there's a safe and well-lit walking path between Millbrae and the airport, in certain cases, it will be faster to walk over than taking BART.

New maps and timetables ready, light rail's 20th anniversary, Caltrain proposed schedule change

VTA's web site has now included new bus schedules that will take effect on January 14. Throughout December and early January, VTA will be tabling at various sites offering trip planning to riders.

Light rail's 20th anniversary

20 years ago, the Santa Clara County Transit District opened its first segment of light rail in North San Jose, between Younger Street and Old Ironsides station.

Is the light rail's 20th anniversary something worth celebrating?

After two decades, various system extensions, and an expensive conversion to low floor rail cars, light rail has received way more criticisms than praises. The light rail's passenger load and farebox recovery rank low compared to other light rail systems in the rest of the country. Light rail has not helped turn Downtown San Jose into a major employment or shopping destination. For the majority of commuters having jobs in North San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View, the 10 mph segment in Downtown San Jose is a huge liability rather than an asset. A lot of folks said that light rail should've skipped downtown and instead head straight to the airport.

The scary part is that these downtown delusionals that were once counting on light rail are now counting on BART in hopes to turn the downtown around. If folks in South San Jose are not riding light rail to downtown, or even drive to downtown at all, why should these downtown delusionals think they could get folks from Oakland or Berkeley to go to downtown San Jose?

Caltrain proposed schedule change

Since the August 2005 schedule change that increased the number of Baby Bullet trains, there are gaps over an hour long in early evening service for both northbound and southbound trains. The current proposal would add an additional round trip within the gap and reschedule other trains to provide an hourly headway. Caltrain says that it can add trains because of the operational efficiency resulted from the new maintenance facility in San Jose.

More route changes coming in January

While it seems that VTA has settled the operating plan down for January, at least two changes will take place that will be different from what was approved by the VTA board in August.

DASH - With the approval of the City and Downtown Association, it will resume the old route before August 2005 when buses go straight on San Fernando Street from the train station to 4th Street. The current deviation on Santa Clara Street has added travel time as buses wait at lights on Almaden Boulevard (freeway onramp) and on Santa Clara Street. This change is reflected in the January 2008 service preview map, which will be released by VTA soon.

Line 11 - Sponsored by VTA Boardmember/San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo, line 11 will operate on 3rd Street and on Jackson Street (instead of 6th and then Empire) from Downtown San Jose to Hedding Street & 17th Street. The alignment from Hedding & 17th to Downtown San Jose will stay as originally approved. This change, which will create a large one way loop operation, is not reflected in the preview map.

In addition to the route changes, the VTA and SamTrans board will vote next month whether to amend their interagency transfer agreement. The proposed change will partly mitigate the planned loss of line 22 service in Menlo Park by allowing VTA pass holders to board SamTrans buses in Menlo Park without paying additional fare. In return, VTA will honor SamTrans pass holders on VTA buses throughout Palo Alto. While the existing interagency transfer agreement (which honor each other's passes at shared bus stops) applies to VTA pass holders in Menlo Park today, a change in transfer agreement is necessary because Menlo Park will no longer have shared stops after the elimination of line 22 (the only VTA service) there.

VTA November update

Dean Chu voted off

Incumbent Sunnyvale City Councilman Dean Chu, who is also the current chairperson at VTA, was defeated yesterday for another City Council term. He is the only incumbent from that city to be defeated in this election. His opponent, David Whittum, is against new taxes, including sales taxes by VTA. Chu, who has served on the VTA board for several years, has become one of the most reliable votes outside of San Jose to support San Jose and VTA administration.

Due to rotational representation, Sunnyvale will no longer have a regular membership on the VTA board next year, instead it will have an alternate membership. Chu will no longer be able to serve as a regular nor alternate member on VTA next year. However, he may be able to keep his membership on the MTC. Chu's predecessor on the MTC, John McLemore, has continued to serve on the MTC years for a few years even though he was no longer a member of the Santa Clara City Council.

$40 million staging site

With the support from San Jose downtown delusionals, VTA has done a big favor for the City of San Jose in the name of construction staging.

In a bidding war for a site in downtown San Jose, VTA recently agreed to purchase the property, which is zoned for high density development, for nearly $40 million. VTA said it needs the property so that "the lot will be used to store cranes, compressors, generators and soil cement mixing tanks, and later precast deckbeams, steel I-beams and steel struts..." only if voters in this county passes a new sales tax for VTA.

VTA does not have plans for permanent usage for much of the property and VTA admits the site can support private developments in the future. Regardless, VTA is spending $40 million, along with associated financing cost, to keep the site as an open air parking lot for years to come.

For the City of San Jose, VTA's purchase of the property is a blessing because the city would have much more control (with the city's representation on VTA) over future developments of the site without having to spend its own money. In 2002, the city unsuccessfully tried to include this property into a redevelopment zone, which would allow the city to obtain this property through eminent domain.

Although in the long run, property values will go up. Will the future resell value be high enough to justify the initial purchase price and the financing cost? Can VTA make enough money off of future developments on this property to provide any significant funding for BART construction?

Pending platform retrofit work

On November's VTA Take One is a story about the pending platform retrofit work for the remaining light rail stations south of the Convention Center. If the VTA Baord approves the construction contract next month, work will begin in late February all the way until late November. Most stations will close for about 8 weeks for construction. Tamien will remain open on weekdays during construction, and Santa Teresa will remain open throughout construction with temporary platforms. Substitute bus service will be provided during closure. No construction nor closure will occur over the 4th of July holiday.

Santa Clara-Alum Rock scoping meeting

VTA has scheduled a scoping meeting for the Santa Clara-Alum Rock corridor on Wednesday, November 14, 6:00pm at the San Jose City Hall. VTA is starting the state EIR process for the corridor and the agency will be studying both BRT and single car LRT.

VTA to study a BART extension without downtown subway

One alternative being considered in the EIS is a shortened BART extension to Berryessa. A maintenance facility under this alternative would either be located in some industrial areas near 101, or not in Santa Clara County at all (by expanding the Hayward yard, etc).

Of course this is not a serious alternative for VTA because it is only to be studied in the EIS to fulfill the federal requirement but not the state mandated EIR, which VTA has completed a supplemental EIR last year without this alternative. The supplemental EIR only studied the same extension to Santa Clara with only one downtown station and some small changes. It is obvious that VTA is studying this alternative for the "New Starts" process, as VTA two years ago intended to compete for federal funds for the Berryessa segment and leave the downtown segment locally funded.

Over the last 6 years, Ron Gonzales has refused to give any consideration or even a meaningful discussion in regards to BART to Milpitas or Berryessa, largely driven by delusionals who wanted BART more as a public monument in downtown San Jose rather than as a transportation option.

However, the extension to Berryessa as presented is a viable option. In contrary to VTA's earlier assertion that a full extension is neccessary because of the proposed maintenance facility in Santa Clara, VTA has identified an alternative location east of downtown in an industrial area. A possible outcome from the EIS could be that an extension to Berryessa, which is within the San Jose's city limit, can be built after all without new taxes and minimal impact to VTA's transit operation and its committment to Caltrain. Would then voters support a tax just for the downtown subway?

Whether BART is extended to Berryessa or Santa Clara, a major disadvantage of BART in the corridor is that one less corridor is available for Altamont Commuter Express and Caltrain Metro East.

The 2008 Measure A sales tax campaign starts now

Unfortunately, cutting the VTA board meeting short has finally paid off for VTA. The Governor, going against his other Republican legislators who all voted no on SB264, sign it into law.


There is no way that SVLG and VTA will campaign for a new 1/8 cent sales tax without inflating sales tax revenue and/or making false promises like they did in 2000. In 2000, SVLG and VTA deceived voters all the way to the bank despite the VTA General Manager's recommendation of a new 1/4 cent sales tax as shown in the memo below:





Since the passage of Measure A in 2000, VTA has done nothing to increase transit services, especially to the bus system. Although some lines will see increased service in January under the COA, COA is simply a plan to realign service, not plan to increase service overall. On the other hand, with the COA, VTA would have an incentive to pay part of the revenue shortfall (if a 1/8 cent tax passes) by gradually reducing frequency on lines such as line 23 from every 12 minutes (promised in COA) to every 15 minutes (today) and line 180 from every 15 minutes (promised in COA) to every 20/30 minutes (today).


In the next few months, expect the VTA Board to fool around with expediture scenarios trying to justify a tax increase. Fortunately, the battle against SB264 is not a total loss. Despite a very quiet opposition by VTA, the State has agreed to audit VTA.

Scoping meetings preview

Click pictures above for documents

VTA should be forthcoming about the need to have an additional tax for the BART extension, which is nowhere mentioned in its promotional document shown above. It is no longer a secret that VTA is desperate for some kind of electorial victory when its directors cut its meeting short last week in order to rub elbows with the governor lobbying him to sign SB264, even though a 1/8 cent tax isn't enough to build BART and fulfill other 2000 Measure A "promises" such as Caltrain electrification.

VTA should propose spending alternatives under a no-new tax scenario, and reopen transit alternatives for consideration. VTA's spending ability cannot be separated from the project.

As to station area planning, it is unrealistic for VTA to assume it will obtain over 100,000 riders per day largely relying on future developments around the station. San Jose does not have the employment concentration and density like San Francisco, nor has a natural transportation barrier like San Francisco Bay and the Bay Bridge.

Ridership projection, cost effectiveness, and project viability should not be ignored, as much as these planners want you to focus on mickey mouse stuff like station design, etc.

Meeting times

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Milpitas City Hall, Committee Meeting Room455

East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas

Thursday, October 11, 2007

San Jose City Hall, Wings 118-120

200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Santa Clara Senior Citizens Center, Room 232

1303 Fremont Street

Google Transit, VTA's "milestone", and breaking a 2000 Measure A promise

Google Transit

As recommended by the RIDES Task Force, VTA transit information is now included in the Google Transit trip planner, which is directly accessible from the VTA's main web page. It is a huge improvement over the 511.org trip planner with a faster and more familiar user interface.

Despite the speed and relative accuracy with online trip planners, online trip planners are generally rigid and don't educate new riders on using transit without going online. In the Google and 511 trip planners, they both list light rail lines with route numbers, which is not used at all both at the station and on the vehicles.

Google Transit and 511 trip planners cannot replace good timetable and map reading skills for savvy riders. The VTA customer service number and 511 are also helpful when traveling with a cell phone and need a timetable on demand.

VTA's "milestone"

VTA's PR department is now blowing smoke publicly after receiving two old grants and a permission to draft the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the FTA. These two FTA grants that VTA intends to reimburse itself for preliminary engineering was carried over from FY05 and FY06, before VTA withdrew itself from the Federal New Starts process after receiving "not recommended" status from the FTA for years.

Although VTA has completed the state requirement for Environmental Impact Report (EIR), VTA was not able to obtain permission from the FTA to begin the EIS until recently. The reason was because the BART to Warm Springs extension was under study and the EIS for that project was not approved until late last year. BART started the EIS for the Warm Springs extension in 2004 when the agency wanted to seek federal funds for that project. Originally BART intended the Warm Springs extension to be totally state and locally funded, with a huge portion coming from the operating surplus coming from the SFO extension which never materialized.

VTA has scheduled several "scoping" meeting for the BART project this month. While the presentations to be made by the staff at the beginning would be a waste of time, your feed back is important. The purpose of the "scoping" meeting is to determine areas of concerns the staff should study.

Breaking of a 2000 Measure A "promise"

This Thursday, the VTA Board will vote whether to shelf the Alum Rock-Santa Clara light rail project and recommend BRT instead. For many months, VTA Watch has reported that the light rail extension there is unlikely due to funding concerns, but this time VTA will officially break one of its "promises" in 2000 Measure A.

If VTA can break this "promise," VTA can also break its BART extension "promise," especially knowing that BART will bankrupt the agency and harm local transit, like what the SFO extension has done to SamTrans and Caltrain. Which promise is worthier to break? It depends whether you are a transit rider or a highly paid VTA staffer or consultant.

Why is VTA pit one neighborhood against another?

The highly paid BART delusionals at VTA are asking the community to pick which side of Santa Clara Street the subway would go under at Coyote Creek. To avoid impacting the Santa Clara Street bridge structure, the VTA staff is recommending the tunnel to travel off the street right-of-way and under the neighborhoods.

Those who live north of Santa Clara Street would prefer the tunnel to go south of the street, and those from the south would prefer it to go north. There are legitimate concerns about noise and vibrations generated from the tunnels during and after construction. As we know, for an electric train system, BART is not a quiet, both inside and outside the train.

The city staff perfers the southern alignment, because the northern alignment could impact the redevelopment potential of the former San Jose Medical Center site by limiting the height of future buildings there. However, the redevelopment potential is questionable since no BART station is planned within half a mile from the site and a light rail extension is no longer a viable option on Santa Clara Street.

Just like the Berryessa Flea Market issue, the communities will be the winner if the BART extension is dead and superior options like Caltrain Metro East were pursued instead. Why vote to increase your tax to put noisy tunnels under your house? Vote No on Measure A next year.