Grand Jury finds VTA deceived voters...again

Earlier today, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury released its findings on VTA. What the Grand Jury discovered are pretty much what we've experienced over the years: that the VTA board was out of touch, VTA staff deceived voters, and VTA committees were ignored.

VTA board was out of touch

Overwhelming Information. The voluminous board packets provided by VTA staff are frequently several hundred pages and contain information that require many hours of review by the board members before the meeting. Most board members work full time, which leaves them very little time to review the material in the packet. Some members stay up late at night to review the packet the night before the meeting. An exception is the City of San Jose, and Board of Supervisors, who have full-time, paid staff to review and distill the information. The other cities have part-time city council members with no support staff to help with VTA activities.

Staff Driven. All of the above issues contribute to the fact that VTA remains an organization that is frequently referred to as “staff driven.” Meeting agendas are prepared by VTA staff with input from the Board chairperson. In some cases, the chairperson follows a “script” prepared by VTA staff. Interviews with VTA board and committee members revealed that independent thinking was discouraged. Board members appear unwilling or unable to bring up items for discussion that are not prescreened by the staff. Hence, the VTA Board has frequently been referred to as a “rubber stamp” for policy proposals formulated by the VTA staff.

Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report recommended that the VTA Board make every effort to insure that new board members have transportation experience by appointing new members with previous transportation experience and reappointing members for multiple terms. Nevertheless the Mayor of San Jose recently appointed two new board members to represent San Jose who have no previous transportation experience.

VTA staff deceived voters

In June, 2006 the Board approved a comprehensive 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan for all projects identified in 2000 Measure A. During 2008, an update to this plan was scheduled. Sometime between June 19, 2008 and August 7, 2008, this update was cancelled and a decision was made to place an additional tax on the November, 2008 ballot.

(At the August 2008 meeting) Mr. Burns advised that the Light-Rail Extension to Eastridge “has not been stopped but that there is not enough money to complete all of the Measure A projects. . .” The Board “reaffirmed” its support for the project and recommended continuation of planning and design activities. However, property acquisition, utility relocation construction and completion of bid documents for construction contracts were not authorized.

(At the same meeting) The staff presented a report to the Board supporting the sufficiency of the 1/8 cent tax proposal to cover the projected deficit in BART operating costs. The conclusion was based on a new 30-year sales tax revenue estimate. This report also provided sufficient information to update the revenue estimate in the new Revenue and Expenditure Plan.

The September, 2008, scheduled presentation of the update to the Revenue and Expenditure Plan was not delivered and never rescheduled... As a consequence, the public was not informed of the 2000 Measure A 30-year financial situation before the November 2008 election.

(In the draft June 2009 capital budget) A notable exception in the preliminary documentation is the absence of any funding for the light rail to Eastridge program which appears to have become totally dependent on unidentified federal funding.

Essentially VTA forwent short term job creation by shelving the light rail project, which was shovel-ready and has received community support.

If the 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been updated as planned, it likely would have shown that if the BART extension were built as planned, the remaining 2000 Measure A projects would require massive additional investment... 

...If the updated Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been readily available to the public, Measure B might not have passed. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not to publish it prior to the election.

Of particular concern is that VTA intends to start collection of the Measure B tax while only completing a shortened version of the BART extension to Berryessa...

The ballot wording specifically refers to funding for the entire 16.1 mile BART extension.

VTA committees were ignored

Token committees. Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report took the VTA to task for poor use of its Advisory Committees... One of the key criticisms is that the Advisory Committees are presented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff has already made a decision... VTA’s attitude toward these committees has ranged from ignoring their existence entirely to retaliation for independent thinking.

Watchdog committee or lapdog committee?

The members of the CAC/CWC (2000 Measure A Watchdog committee) interviewed all stated they work for the VTA Board. This is a reasonable position for a CAC member, but not when acting in the capacity of a CWC member. The very nature of an “independent watchdog committee” is to “oversee” actions of the board for the citizens of Santa Clara County.

CAC/CWC members are approved by the VTA Board, compromising independence of thought and action.

Some CAC/CWC members are former VTA Board members, former Policy Advisory Committee members and/or former elected officials in the county. One interviewee referred to the committee as the “Board Retirement Plan Committee.”

(In 2007) The VTA Board has approved the exchange (swap) of approximately $107M of Measure A funds for use on non-Measure A programs in exchange for a payback from anticipated State Transportation Improvement (STIP) funds at a future time (basically swap funding programmed for the airport peoplemover project with highways)...

..As of June, 2008, approximately $9M of Measure A sales tax revenue had been spent on non-Measure A programs. At the same time, the 2000 Measure A program was over $361M in debt... There was no prior discussion or notification to the Citizen Watchdog Committee. The CWC was informed after the fact in a report from VTA staff.

At its February 11, 2009 meeting, a discussion regarding the CWC’s responsibilities in this area was initiated by a CWC member and stifled by VTA staff in attendance by reminding the CWC members of the limitations in their responsibilities... following this meeting two members of the CWC resigned, leaving a total of five vacancies.

In many ways, VTA is like a communist state, where there cannot be an honest dialogue about major policies. Like a communist state, the legislative bodies are basically a rubber stamp for the supposedly all powerful, all knowing (and all self-serving) bureaucracy. Like a communist state, open discussions and dissents are not tolerated (like you can't still talk about the 1989 Tiananmen massacre in China today). Since Michael Burns believes in deceiving the riders, taxpayers, as well as those he who should formally seek advice from, one has to wonder who is his real boss.

"Shocked?" "astonished?" ...more like "we told you so!"

At yesterday's VTA board workshop, the boardmembers who naively believed in Michael Burns' words last fall now found themselves "shocked" and "astonished" over the bleak financial projections presented by staff and consultants.

They were also "surprised" to hear that the BART project could only be built in phases. VTA released its updated costs for the BART project, which VTA insisted that it must be withheld from the public before last year's election. Overall, the total cost for the line to Santa Clara has grown to $6.1 billion, which is not escalated to the year of completion, and does not include financing cost.

For us, there's nothing shocking:

Given the results, it is unlikely for voters to approve a third tax for the same project in the next 8 years, if not longer. VTA will have no choice but to build a shorter line (which was never put on the table before by VTA until right after the election) with the funding it already has. At the end, it may not be a win for the downtown delusionals who want nothing but a subway.

And that Guardino and Burns cheated the county taxpayers:

Although it may seem like an outcome of the Measure B vote, the Berryessa segment is actually a project that VTA could undertake without Measure B. VTA intentionally delayed in committing a feasible funding plan so that VTA could pretend that they really need the tax. Perhaps Measure B opponents like Rick DiNapoli and Bill Baron were right that the tax was actually to backfill VTA's inefficient operation.

Michael Burns knows as much as we do, but what he did was that he controlled the flow of information. Before the election, he said that VTA had the money to build the entire BART project but not to run it. Today, he said that VTA could only afford to build the line to Berryessa. Last month, VTA presented a revised operating plan for July that is supposed to keep the same level of transit service with no budget cuts. Now, transit service is on the chopping block. Also in January, Burns asked the VTA board to approve an updated Short Range Transit Plan that has an operating reserve of $50 million, which would continue to grow for years to come. Today, Burns presented a new projection that would eat up all the reserves.

The economy was already in poor shape months before the election. It should be a no-brainer to know that VTA would be in a deep crisis soon. Burns withheld information at the time when voters were deciding whether to trust VTA, and only release bad news when voters no longer matter to VTA.

Things that VTA should have told voters about

At the VTA Board workshop yesterday, General Manager Michael Burns told what a lot of us have been suspected but was denied by the supporters during the Measure B campaign.

"It's clear we can't see the BART project getting ($750 million in federal) money if we're spending our local money on other projects," Burns said in an interview earlier this week. "That just doesn't add up."

During the meeting, VTA also admitted that it would receive $2 billion less from the 2000 Measure A than what was projected earlier.

Basically Burns was saying that all the other projects would be off the table, even the airport people mover, a project that has no operating funds identified. The BRT project along Santa Clara Street, which replaced light rail as originally listed on the 2000 Measure A, is also at risk.

Although some think that the bickering should stop, the bickering will never end as long as VTA has to deploy deceptive tactics to get a tax passed. Burns said that BART was approved by voters twice, but we all know that VTA did not put other projects on the ballot twice for voters to approve. VTA controlled which projects go onto the ballot, controlled how much tax to collect, and controlled what information released relevent to voters. VTA has become a Russian style "democracy."

Given the election results in Los Angeles and the North Bay, VTA could've been better off by being more honest.

Secretary of State + County Registrar = Katherine Harris

George Bush got chosen to be the president 8 years ago when the Supreme Court ordered a stop to the Florida recount. Today, attorneys from the Secretary of State and the County Registrar conspired to avoid a recount of Measure B.

Basically, when TRANSDEF went to court in Santa Clara County yesterday, an attorney from the Secretary of State pulled a technical maneuver by demanding that the hearing to be moved to San Francisco because the secretary has no office in Santa Clara County. The plaintiff refiled the case in San Francisco today. During the hearing today, an attorney from the County Registrar said that it had already certified the election earlier in the morning. Therefore, the plaintiff was not able to get a temporary restraining order to stop the certification, which would give the plaintiff time to argue a case for a 10% manual recount based on the Secretary of State's emergency order and the U.S. Constitution.

Basically the issue of whether there should be equal protection was not addressed. This is another dirty tactic to prevent a recount of a tight election. This is contrary to the earlier intent from the Secretary of State that votes be counted fairly and accurately. We will never know what election irregularities there could be. Meanwhile, other candidates and campaigns elsewhere have the right to receive a recount.

This is another example of how Measure B was approved based on unethical and sometimes illegal tactics. Before the campaign, VTA deceived boardmembers and the public with misleading operating costs. At the start of the campaign, the yes side filed frivolous lawsuits to strike words from the ballot arguments. In the midst of the campaign, VTA staff assisted the yes campaign during working hours. This time, the Secretary of State and the Registrar conspired to prevent a recount, while other tight elections receive them.

Did they prevent a recount based on political convenience? or just simply a countywide recount is too expensive? Neither case is justified. There was no justice.

Did the other side win fairly? No. Is Measure B enough to fulfill what they promised? No. Will there be tough fights ahead to preserve bus service and other transit projects? Yes.

Yes for equal protection

Today, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) sued the Secretary of State trying to get an automatic 10% manual recount of the Measure B votes. The hearing has been moved from Santa Clara County to San Francisco.

A few weeks before the November election, the Secretary of State adopted new emergency regulations that mandate a 10% manual recount on tight races with a margin less than half a percent. However, the Secretary of State worded the regulations this way: “For ballot measure contests, including recall contests, the margin of victory is the difference between the percentages of votes for and against the ballot measure.”

Because school bonds require 55% and most other taxes require 2/3 to pass, the wording was probably an honest mistake on the part of the Secretary of State. However, a lawsuit is necessary in order to get a recount because the county's Registrar of Voters refused to do so based on its strict interpretation of the regulations.

Those who voted no on B deserve equal protection from the law like those who voted for other ballot measures and candidates. It is clear that Measure B was only passed by an extremely small margin. There's no legal or moral gounds to deny an automatic recount in this race but not other tight races. Remember, that's how Bush got into office when the Supreme Court ordered a stop to the recount in Florida 8 years ago.

Also, if Measure B were defeated by the same margin, the yes campaign would certainly take actions to get a recount.

TRANSDEF has a history of protecting transit riders when politicians and big money lobbyists abandoned them. In 2003, it issued legal comments in support of using Measure A funds to save bus service. It also fought against many highway expansions in the Bay Area that only encourage more auto dependency.

Campaigning brings out the worst in politics

It is all too common. From the presidential politics and local politics, campaigning generally brings out the worst. In a desperate move trying to win, a lot of campaigns present false accusations, make unfulfillable promises, and hide crucial information.

The Measure B campaign brought the worst in the South Bay politics. From the beginning to the end, the yes campaign made false promises. Crucial information about the cost of the project was hidden by the transit agency and the San Jose Mercury News. VTA did all they could trying to separate itself from the tax, even though VTA would collect the money and build the project. There was virtually no room for substantive debates.

As we already experienced in 2006, regardless of the election outcome, things generally tend to stay the same. The downtown delusionals will continue to advocate to build the project at the expense of everything else. Bus and light rail service will still be at risk. The economic reality at VTA will remain the same.

Even though most voters can't connect the dots between declining VTA service and Measure B, it does not mean that they don't care about the bus service and other VTA priorities. Measure B never directly asked them to de-prioritize these important needs. However, the downtown delusionals have their own interpretation. Expect them to demand VTA to defund these needs.

VTA could hide crucial information during the election, but VTA will not be able to hide it forever. Very soon, VTA will have to face reality. By that time, the dots will be much more easier to connect.

Is BART the only thing that voters could ever pass?

In an unprecedented turnout, the yes vote for B barely crept pass 2/3 threshold with the provisional votes. It is unusual because Santa Clara County had a voter turnout of about 70% in 2000 and 2004, but increased by over 15% in just 4 years.

It is a temporary win for the downtown delusionals. As expected, they will say that voters only want BART but not other forms of mass transit, and that somehow VTA can pay for the whole project.

Is that really the case?

• In Los Angeles, voters approved a 1/2 cent sales tax increase for transit by 67.31%.
• In the North Bay, voters approved a 1/4 cent sales tax increase for rail by 69.5%.
• In the East Bay, voters approved a parcel tax for AC Transit operation by 71.9%.

Voters should have easily passed a tax for transit if they actually have confidence in VTA. VTA now only had to rely on voters who don't know about VTA or the tax 8 years ago.

Regardless what the vote margin is, VTA is bound to break its "promise." VTA has not been telling voters how it could build the BART line, or even how much it would cost. In any case, the financial situation will only get tighter with declining state funding and sales tax revenue.

Given the results, it is unlikely for voters to approve a third tax for the same project in the next 8 years, if not longer. VTA will have no choice but to build a shorter line (which was never put on the table before by VTA until right after the election) with the funding it already has. At the end, it may not be a win for the downtown delusionals who want nothing but a subway.

More VTA threats

While the final vote count for Measure B has yet to be certified, we already know plenty whether Measure B fails or passes.

1. VTA is still a few billion dollars short of what is necessary to build the BART project to downtown San Jose.
2. The state is expected to make further funding cuts to transit because of the its budget crisis.
3. VTA is already anticipating shortfalls in sales tax revenue. Automobile sales, one of the largest contributors in sales tax revenue, is expected to fall by double digits from a year ago.
4. VTA, like many other transit agencies around the country, took advantage of a tax loophole (leaseback transactions of assets) in the past that allowed them to generate additional revenues. Because of the fall of AIG, which is the insurer of most of these transactions, transit agencies are facing the possibility of paying millions in penalties.

Even if Measure B passes, at best it would buy VTA a few more years of lies. In the meantime, existing VTA service would come under an even greater threat.

It is unfortunate that in this valley we have so called "leaders" who are obsessed with the BART brand name and the downtown subway. While their obsession with a type of trains is one thing, their willingness to distort reality and sacrifice existing service is another. If we were, like other regions, put the brand name obsession aside, we would've achieved consensus and deliver quality and cost-effective transit.

A nail biter

The Measure B vote is still too close to call (although still hasn't passed). Meanwhile, unfortunately both Measures C and D passed.

Compared to the Measure A hospital bond and other transportation taxes throughout the Bay Area, Measure B receives the least vote even though SVLG spent more than a million dollars to promote it. It is a testament that enough people know about VTA's mess and that they don't approve of it.

Meanwhile, Prop 1A high speed rail bond passed with minimal promotions.

VTA couldn't get BART to say that Measure B would be enough

Besides from the biggest lie that VTA has enough local funding to build the BART project (how do you know when VTA is not releasing updated costs?), the other big lie is that Measure B would provide enough funding to subsidize the operation. According to the Palo Alto Daily Post, new Public Records Act documents obtained by the No on B campaign from BART show that VTA and BART still couldn't agree whether Measure B would be enough after it was placed on the ballot:

"If asked if $42m is enough, I don't believe we are in a position to say yes," wrote BART General Mananger Dorothy Dugger in an Aug. 20 e-mail to VTA head Michael Burns. "Until we have an operating plan we really don't know what the costs are." Burns was asking Dugger for help responding to a statement in the Mercury News that VTA's annual obligation to BART was $48 million, not the $42 million the sales tax hike is estimated to generate.

VTA and BART had differences on operating plans. VTA wanted BART to operate shorter trains to save capital and operating costs. BART did not agree with VTA's plan for shorter trains because BART determines the train length according to the ridership demand between San Francisco and the East Bay. Running shorter trains to accommodate low ridership on the proposed line would cause overcrowding further north.

Michael Burns wanted BART to confirm VTA's flawed estimate, which claims Measure B would be more than enough to subsidize BART operations. Although BART was reluctant to endorse VTA's estimate, BART realized that it is in their interest to see Measure B passed anyhow even if it may mean further cuts into VTA's operation. In response, BART issued a letter stated that VTA's estimate was consistent with the 2001 comprehensive agreement, even though it never tried to answer the critical question of whether Measure B would be enough.

"It means that the VTA board placed a tax measure on the ballot without even knowing what the costs of the project are going to be," said No on B spokeswoman Margaret Okuzumi. "VTA is attempting to obscure this, to hide this, to get some kind of political cover from BART."

It is hard to get fair news coverage these days on this issue. Due to media consolidation and bias, the San Jose Mercury News and its associate local newspapers virtually blacked out most news and comments critical of Measure B. Two weeks ago, with three TV stations covering the press conference held by the No on B campaign, San Jose Mercury News provided zero coverage, even though "reporter" Gary Richards showed up and observed the press conference.

VTA schedules VTP 2035 meetings after the election

Without providing advance notice to its advisory committees, VTA announced it will hold meetings on VTP 2035 right after the election.

VTP 2035 is a transportation wish list (includes highway and transit projects) that VTA has to submit to the MTC every few years in order to receive state and federal funding. VTP will determine the transportation priority.

On the November ballot, Measure C was supposed to ask voters to approve VTP 2035. However, because VTA delayed releasing the plan until the after the election, the Measure C ballot language asks voters to approve a plan "to be adopted" by the VTA board in December.

There's no reason for VTA to ask voters to pre-approve a plan that voters can't see. Without a balanced capital plan for the last two years, there's no reason to assume that VTA wouldn't propose cuts to projects like Caltrain electrification after the election. We already know that Measure B would not be enough to build and subsidize the BART line.

Retiring County Executive Pete Kutras finds VTA/SVLG relationship troubling

In an interview by Scott Herhold on County Executive Pete Kutras' upcoming retirement:

Q. I want to talk a little about VTA and BART, which is not directly your portfolio, but certainly affects the county. When this first came up in 2000, Mayor Gonzales did an end-run around the supervisors and went straight to the VTA to put it on the ballot. And there was a replay this time when they went to the VTA for a one-eighth cent tax. Does the competition with the hospital parcel tax bother you?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me why.

A. Because I think medical care is the number one issue in this county, in this state, in this country. And to say a capital project such as BART should be the priority troubles me. I see the priority as physical health, mental health, and frankly, education over BART. That’s my personal view.

Q. If I could follow that up, I’d like to ask a question about VTA’s governance. A recent public records request from former Monte Sereno Council Member Mark Brodsky suggested that the VTA and the Leadership Group work very much hand-in-hand. Carl Guardino asks Mike Burns to lobby people. Burns provides help for their lawsuit. They exchange information on speeches. This is quite extensive. Should a public agency and a private lobby be that close?

A. No, they should not. We’ve all in this valley looked at that relationship. I’ve seen the VTA board make decisions on private polling that’s been done by the Leadership Group. We have tried over the years to see the polling. The leadership group is very selective. They will show you some questions, some information. Because they paid for it and it’s a private poll, you don’t see it. But there’s always a sense of uneasiness. Is the VTA board making decisions in public based on what is on the public record? That’s what’s troubling. I don’t want to join in any accusation, but I’m troubled by it.

On the November ballot, although Measure A Valley Medical Center bond receives virtually no opposition (not even an opposition argument was submitted!), it is nonetheless competing with Measure B for votes.

Two years ago, it was SVLG, using private polls, that successfully lobbied the county to place a 1/2 cent general sales tax increase on the ballot. Voters saw through the backroom deal to transfer the money to VTA and rejected the measure.

When the needs are clearly identified, like the earthquake retrofit of the only general hospital in the county, political factions will come together. On the other hand, Measure B demonstrates just the opposite. Considering the fact that VTA is still withholding new cost estimates on the BART project, Measure B should never be placed on the ballot in the first place.

Piecing the puzzle on the true cost

With all the exaggerated claims made by Measure B proponents, they have so far provided nothing to back up their promises.

What the documents obtained through the Public Record Act show is that VTA refused to provide updated cost estimates:

Email from Bena Chang (Yes on B/SVLG operative) to VTA on Friday, 8/22 at 4:58pm :

"Could you answer this question for us? We'll need the answer by Monday, cob. WHAT IS THE COST FOR DESIGN AND BUILD OF THE EXTENSION AND HOW MUCH OF THAT IS FUNDED BY MEASURE A AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES?"

Reply from Brandi Childress (VTA PR staff) to Chang on Monday, 8/25 at 3:01pm:

"On your second request, staff is actually working on a 2008 Draft 65% Engineering cost...actual costs in 2008 dollars based on the design thus far. Is COB today the drop deadline... in other words, is early tomorrow out of the question? Please advise, thanks!"

Another reply from Jennie Loft (VTA PR staff) to Chang on Monday, 8/25 at 3:37pm:

"We are Working on 2008, 65% engineering costs. It will need to go through review process. What we have now available is 2005, trending engineering costs, which you can have now. Please advise and we can provide. Thanks!"

Later at night, Leyla Hedayat, a VTA planner, sent a message to the VTA PR staff about Chang's questions (8/25 at 11:18pm):

"I received an email this evening to talk to Michael, I will try him first thing tomorrow - I suspect it has do with the cost estimate. We have the trended PE in 2005$ but will not have the 65% cost estimate for tomorrow. They are not finalized and VTA mgmt. has not reviewed these costs. I will give an update at our meeting tomorrow."

Reply from Childress to Phil Yost, another SVLG operative, on Tuesday, 8/26 at 4:19pm:

"..The VTA Exec Team is working on numbers based on 65% design engineering costs but we need to really vet them with Mr. Burns which won't be ready by tomorrow. We also want to make sure we are accurate and ready to run with figures that have not even been released through our Federal environmental or new starts processes yet. Our take is that we would rather be safe than sorry..."

Reply from Childress to Chang on Tuesday, 8/26 at 4:45pm:

"..The cost is $4.7 billion in 2005 dollars. The extension will cost approximately $6 billion in year of expenditure dollars (construction year dollars), projected by year 2017. This figure considers inflation of the dollar and does not mean the cost has increased from $4.7 billion..."

Another message from Hedayat to the VTA PR staff about Chang's questions (8/26 at 10:35pm):

"...Can you make sure that Bena knows that $4.7 Billion is the Preliminary Engineering (35%) estimate. This is important later when the a 65% estimate is released. We should be careful about emphasizing "This figure considers inflation of the dollar and does not mean the cost has increased from $4.7 billion." It is okay to say inflation of the dollar but lets not focus on this does not mean the cost has increased."

Essentially Hedayat admitted that the actual cost (yet to be released) would be much higher than the cost told by the PR staff.

Nearly two months after the email exchanges between SVLG and VTA over the cost of the project, VTA is still officially withholding the updated cost estimates. Soon after the press conference held by the No on B campaign, Michael Burns told KCBS what the No on B campaign has long suspected:

"Burns said the new estimate due early in 2009 would likely be in the $6 billion range, a figure consistent with Okuzumi's projection based on a 30 percent increase in construction costs."

Burns told the media that it would be irresponsible for him to provide new numbers before the work is finished (scheduled to be completed after the election). However, it is actually more irresponsible for him to withhold that information until after the election. Since 2000, VTA has not shown once that it could afford to build the BART project without gutting the rest of the transit system and/or more tax increases. Measure B is just another attempt to mislead voters into believing that VTA could build the BART project cheap.

Besides the outdated figures, VTA also refused to include bonding cost. Numerous studies have indicated that VTA will require billions more in bonding cost to maintain cash flow if it wants to build the entire project in 10 years. VTA could scrap every project it promised earlier, but VTA could not refuse to pay the bonding cost.

Using outdated numbers and omitting bonding cost, Measure B simply would not be enough for VTA to deliver the BART project. However, it would allow VTA to hold back on other transit improvements, if not cutting more of the transit services that we have.

Santa Teresa station and more

Santa Teresa and Cottle are the only stations under construction. While Cottle is closed during construction, Santa Teresa remains open with a temporary platform.


Construction at the Santa Teresa platform.


This is the temporary platform in the tailtrack area. Notice the wheelchair ramps and the hatchmarked area at the edge of the platform.


Light rail cars occupy that hatchmarked area. For some reasons, the temporary platform isn't level with the train.


A folding tent is serving as a shelter.


There's no direct exit from the platform to Santa Teresa Avenue.

Measure B is finally shown on VTA's site

After an earlier complaint from this blog, VTA finally included information on Measure B on VTA's site.

VTA's PR spin

A day after being slammed with bad news, the VTA's PR department (also happened to be a taxpayer-funded propaganda department of SVLG) suddenly announced "record" ridership increases.

Well, VTA's ridership never broke any records. Systemwide, it is still more than 10% lower than the record ridership in 2001. Ridership on VTA buses was more than 18% lower than in 2001. Ridership increases on light rail helped compensate the loss of bus ridership. However, as we all know, VTA operates a larger light rail system (that replaced some bus lines) today than in 7 years ago.

Caltrain's ridership indeed broke record. Its most recent count showed the ridership exceeded the last record made in 2001.

Typically ridership numbers are not released this early, but VTA did so in an attempt to repair its image. If VTA is really interested to repair its image, VTA should be releasing new cost estimates for the BART project now, not after the election.

VTA staff illegally collaborated with the Yes on B campaign

Earlier today, the No on B, C, and D campaign held a press conference at the VTA headquarter and released copies of written communications between VTA and SVLG staff, which the campaign has obtained from VTA through Public Records Act. These documents show that VTA has been withholding updated cost estimates for the BART project and that VTA employees have illegally collaborated with the Yes on B campaign.

The entire documents are available here.

From the press release...

"An August 25, 2008 email from VTA staff member Brandi Childress to SVLG/Yes on B staffer Bena Chang, stated, 'On your second request, staff is actually working on a 2008 Draft 65% Engineering cost…actual costs in 2008 dollars based on the design thus far.' The following day, she sent an email stating, 'The VTA Exec Team is working on numbers based on 65% design engineering costs but we need to really vet them with [VTA General Manager] Mr. Burns which won’t be ready by tomorrow.' The fact that the project cost has still not been released nearly two months later, and it is less than 3 weeks before the election, can only mean one thing: the project doesn’t work financially with a 1/8-cent sales tax."

In the documents provided also include clear evidence of VTA staff illegally collaborated with the Yes on B campaign. Messages were sent to VTA from SVLG staffers requesting customized maps and talking points to be used on campaign collaterals. VTA staff not only complied with the campaign's request but also actively sought their assistance to ensure consistent messages between Michael Burns and the campaign.

Even though state laws prohibit public funds to be spent on campaign advocacy, maps produced by VTA using public funds has appeared on many of the Yes on B campaign collaterals.

In a memo to the VTA board, VTA's general counsel has denied any illegal activity between VTA staff and the Yes on B campaign. The counsel claimed that the communications were legal because VTA staff only provided factual information. However, the documents indicate that a SVLG employee has told VTA that information from the agency would be used on campaign materials (page 391):

"Editing your original drawings are exactly why I would like a vector copy of your map. Naturally, this would be undertaken with an eye to preserving your good work. Moreover, since we use graphical material relating to BART/VTA in so many of our documents & presentations, it makes sense for me to have a copy (working in tandem with Oxo [a VTA employee]).

Projects of note that will require maps / VTA materials:
- Speaking engagements concerning the Bart To San Jose Campaign
-Collateral produced by the Bart to San Jose Campaign
-Outdoor / Indoor Advertising Relating to the Bart to San Jose Campaign
-SVLG's 'Projections' Report, touting the Bart to San Jose Campaign"

Instead of spending its limited tax dollars on improving transit, VTA used its resources to promote its new tax. From the press release...

"'I’m personally appalled that VTA staff would conduct themselves in a way that not only brings dishonor and discredit to the VTA, but also contradicts the ethics training that VTA staff received at Santa Clara University at the beginning of this year,' David Casas, VTA board member. 'Their actions call into the question the validity of the Yes on B campaign in its entirety.'"

Where's Measure B

As we all know, VTA placed 3 measures on the November ballot: B, C, and D. VTA recently put up an information page about its ballot measures on its web site, but Measure B was clearly missing.

VTA is trying all it can to distance itself with the sales tax, even though VTA is the actual agency that will collect the money and build the project. Why is VTA trying to hide itself?

The same false promises with Measure B

One thing that's true in Santa Clara County is that it is almost impossible to have a sincere, rational discussion about transportation. The delusionals are so obsessed about the BART brand that they're forgetting the fact that it is just a very expensive, non-standard train.

Measure B is all about them being delusional. 8 years ago, Carl Guardino at least tried the featherbed the 2000 Measure A with other projects to make it looked more equitable and fair. This time, with all the VTA failures, all they could sell is a BART brand and a BART delusion without mentioning "VTA" and "new tax." (try to search both phases in the article and you'll see.)

With little credibility left, the delusionals are trying to associate the BART project with all the poll-tested, feel-good buzz words of the day.

Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Reduce greenhouse gas emissions? As Scott Herhold wrote earlier, whatever fuel saving benefits are minimal: "By my back-of-the envelope figuring, the proponents' current estimate of 12,000 gallons of gas saved a day is only three-tenths of 1 percent of total Bay Area usage."

By the way, Caltrain already uses more diesel fuel than that everyday. VTA can do more to reduce oil dependence and emissions by spending just a fraction of the cost to electrify Caltrain. Instead, VTA/SVLG continue to delay the project and trying to mislead others by blaming San Francisco.

A full rail car removes 200 cars from the road? The reality is that neither a BART nor a Caltrain car has that much seating capacity. In fact, even with VTA's inflated ridership numbers, one out of three seats would be empty during the morning rush hours between Fremont and Milpitas. Also, more than half of the projected ridership would be diverted from existing buses and trains.

Of course we must not forget that the BART extension to Millbrae has failed to meet ridership projections and nearly bankrupted SamTrans.

One would wonder why these delusionals are hitting us again for another tax. 8 years ago, voters believed Guardino when he declared that the 2000 tax would be more than enough. After all these years, Measure B supporters could have chip in more of their own money if they really believed BART as a worthy form of investment. Instead, what they did was to shift more of the tax burden onto the residents in this county.

In 2003, Carl Guardino flat out rejected a proposal calling for a VTA payroll tax. If the employers wanted BART because it would somehow help them import more cheap labor from the East Bay, shouldn't they pay their fair share? After all, even a VTA-sponsored "economic study" of the BART project has indicated that workers from out-of-county would only spend about 5.7% of their income in Santa Clara County, mostly on their lunches.

Also, since 2005, SVLG has lobbied for legislation to exempt companies from paying sales taxes.

These days, there are too many false promises everywhere. It is time to have a sincere, rational discussion. Only a NO vote will help us get there.

Palo Alto considers opposing Measure B

The City of Palo Alto is considering a resolution opposing Measure B tomorrow. It is the only city in the county to do so.

It is the right time to consider such resolution. For too long, Palo Alto and other cities have been giving away their tax revenue with little in return. 8 years ago, Palo Alto supported the 2000 Measure A because of funding for Caltrain electrification, Palo Alto transit center, Dumbarton Rail, and increased bus service. Today, not only Palo Alto would not receive any benefit from Measure B, it threatens all the previous promises VTA made to Palo Alto.

VTA General Manager Michael Burns once again tries to deceive the voters by justifying the $91 million funding shift from Dumbarton Rail and VTA's attempts to delay Caltrain electrification. What we know is that VTA has not provided an expenditure plan, which would tell what projects would be funded or not. What we also know is that VTA is withholding a revised cost estimate for BART until after the election, which would tell how much funding, if any, would be available for other projects. Can Michael Burns be trusted? Of course not.

SVLG and VTA will continue the path of deception. Only a NO vote on Measure B will send a clear message that it is not acceptable.

If you live or work in Palo Alto, please consider sending an email message or attend the City Council meeting to express your support for the resolution opposing Measure B.

From BayRail Alliance:

Monday, October 6, 2008 6:30 PM (agenda item #28, so it will probably be heard no earlier than 8 PM)

http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13685

Location:
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301

If you can't make it to city hall at that time, or even if you plan to, please send an e-mail to the city councilmembers and staff expressing your opposition to Measure B.

Blanca Alvarado speaks out

Santa Clara County Supervisor Blanca Alvarado is one of the few public officials that have steadfastly opposed to SVLG/VTA's effort to deceive taxpayers. For the last 8 years, she believed that transportation planning shouldn't be limited to people like Carl Guardino making backroom decisions.

In 2000, when Guardino and Ron Gonzales announced a plan to put a sales tax on the November ballot for the BART project, they first approached the Board of Supervisors for a 20-year general sales tax which required a 50% voter threshold.

Throughout that time, Alvarado withstood pressure from SVLG and instead support a community-based process to draft a plan for the 2002 election. After the Board of Supervisors failed to put the tax on the ballot, Guardino and Gonzales quickly turned to VTA to place an all-transit tax on the November ballot.

Although Alvarado was the chair of VTA, Guardino and Gonzales convinced other VTA board members to support the tax. At a special board meeting when the rest of the board voted to put Measure A on the ballot, she casted the only dissenting vote.

Six years later, when Guardino arranged backroom deals to put a half cent general sales tax on the ballot. Alvarado also casted the only dissenting vote. She wanted to support a 1/4 cent general tax increase for county services that would not include funding for VTA.

Two years later, Guardino is at it again asking for a tax increase to fund the same ill-conceived project that put riders at risk.

Alvarado has been right all along. If the county had waited a year or two to present a transportation plan, the county would've known that BART was unaffordable all along, that VTA riders wouldn't have suffered as much from service reductions and fare increases, and that voters wouldn't have faced the same tax on the ballot election after election.