VTA 1/8 cent tax proposal and more

Without providing an expenditure plan, the VTA Board will consider next week placing a 1/8 cent sales tax increase on the ballot for the BART extension at the request "of a coalition of business, labor, environmental, academic and civic leaders." It is more like Carl Guardino wrote the memo and the ballot measure for VTA by himself, based on his private polling results that he refuses to share with the public.

Also without any analysis, VTA claims that the tax would generate enough funds "to fulfill VTA’s obligation to BART," which is not true. VTA General Manager Michael Burns has admitted that even with the tax, there's still a shortfall of $8 million every year. That shortfall would only cover the minimum payment for BART; however, VTA will actually be responsible for all of the operating subsidies on that extension, including when BART unilaterally increases its operating costs and when ridership fails to meet projection.

In addition, this proposal has not been discussed in any of the VTA standing or advisory committees prior to next week's VTA Board meeting. While it is obvious that Carl Guardino does not want any public participation in the drafting of this tax measure, it is something that the state auditors recommend: "Reviewing work plans for advisory committees to ensure the committees have an opportunity to review and provide input on issues in the early stages of development."

Even without sufficient funds, the VTA board is asked to reaffirm its commitment to the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge at the same meeting. Apparently, the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board got disturbed by Michael Burn's quote in the San Jose Mercury News suggesting that the light rail extension could be deferred due to lack of funds. San Jose Vice Mayor Dave Cortese sent a memo to VTA reminding the agency that the 2000 Measure A was not all about BART (contrary to Carl Guardino) and that it is time for East San Jose's turn to get a light rail extension.

Although this project has entered into final design and is almost ready to build, the ususal VTA argument for spending prioritization (project readiness) will likely not apply. The problem lies the fact that VTA still operates under an old expenditure plan that assumes a new 1/4 cent sales tax, something which was criticized by the state audit released yesterday. Regardless of VTA's "commitment" to the project, the 1/8 cent sales tax pushed by Guardino will provide nothing for the light rail extension. If Dave Cortese truly believes that it is "unfathomable" for VTA to ask for a tax increase yet trying to take away this project, Cortese should vote against the proposed 1/8 cent sales tax.

Obviously, this light rail extension is useless without a light rail line to downtown via Alum Rock and Santa Clara. Without that portion, the ride from Eastridge to Downtown will take more than twice as long as the buses do today. The biggest barrier other than funding for light rail on Alum Rock and Santa Clara is the BART extension.

VTA to host meeting on Downtown East Valley

VTA has released a draft environmental impact report on the Santa Clara-Alum Rock corridor project. Eight years ago, light rail on the that corridor was one of the key projects listed on the 2000 Measure A in order to woo voters. Now it has been watered down to a bus rapid transit project with a possibility of a light rail upgrade.

For the BRT, VTA proposes to operate the existing 522 and the new 523 from downtown to Eastridge along Santa Clara/Alum Rock and then Capitol Expressway. On Santa Clara/Alum Rock west of King, buses will run on the curbside lane with upgraded bus stops that extend to the traffic lane. East of King, buses will run on the median bus lanes to Capitol Avenue. On Capitol Avenue, buses will operate pretty much as it is. VTA estimates a 25 minute travel time between Eastridge and San Jose Diridon Station.

Even if the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge (approved as a separate project, but unfunded) goes forward, buses will continue to serve Eastridge according to the study. However, the EIR has suggested that VTA could defer that project.

As for the light rail alternative, it is similar to the BRT proposal in various ways. It will share lanes with street traffic west of King and have reserved right of way east of King. The light rail alternative has an estimated travel time of a 27 minutes between San Jose Diridon Station and Eastridge, 90 seconds longer than the BRT. VTA says light rail could not be built at least until 2018, when BART is supposed to be completed. Also in the EIR, VTA threw out the idea of putting light rail underground (just like BART) because of the obvious high cost.

Essentially, as long as BART is on the table, light rail is dead on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor. Even though light rail construction could technically move forward once BART construction completes, the reality is that VTA will run out of money by then and it will instead cut local bus service on that corridor to force riders onto BART. Whatever assumptions about the operating plan in the EIR should be taken with a grain of salt.

Although BRT is a good, cost-effective plan worthy of consideration, a switch from light rail to BRT nonetheless represents a pattern of double standards. If VTA actually put as much effort to develop a cost-effective alternative to BART as it did for light rail on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, VTA wouldn't have to ask voters for another tax increase this November.

VTA has scheduled a meeting on Thursday to receive feedback on the proposal:

Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 6 p.m.
(presentation begins at 6:30 p.m.)
Mexican Heritage Plaza, Green Room
1700 Alum Rock Avenue
San Jose, CA 95116

Chuck Reed too chickened to face reality

Chuck Reed, which two years ago endorsed against the 2006 Measure A, expressed disappoinment last Friday that VTA couldn't carry on Ron Gonzales' "legacy":

"Clearly, BART is the No. 1 project," said Reed, a VTA board member. "That is what people voted for and it needs to go all way to Santa Clara. It doesn't make any sense to stop at Berryessa."

With the failure of the 2006 Measure A, clearly the voters no longer believe in the delusion promised in the 2000 Measure A. VTA tried to ignore the issue for years. While it is good for VTA to admit that the tax revenue is much lower than originally projected, and that BART costs a lot more, it is not good enough until the VTA board actually wakes up and does the right thing.

Since 2000, BART to San Jose has been a curse on VTA. Without digging any dirt for the BART extension, VTA's misguided priority has already screwed its passengers (especially the disabled) and its front line employees. Unfortunately, politicians like Chuck Reed know how to pander transit riders (and to others like the Vietnamese community) and then screw them once the politicians are voted into office.

Although other projects such as light rail extension to Eastridge and Caltrain double tracking in the South County are all wasteful and deserve to be on the chopping block, the BART extension is by far the most harmful, and that harm doesn't end once the construction completes. It is dishonest for the VTA Board to think that it can afford BART by getting rid of other non-BART projects, wasteful or not.

Chuck Reed, and the rest of the VTA Board, are too chickened to get rid of that curse.

VTA to restart process for 2000 Measure A expediture plan

Being in a critical election year, VTA is restarting the 2000 Measure A expediture plan process. The last time VTA approved a 2000 Measure A expediture plan was in June 2006, days after the defeat of 2006 Measure A sales tax. Because that plan assumes a new 1/4 cent sales tax that doesn't exist, it is nothing but a sales tax extortion scheme.

VTA has no choice but to revisit the expediture plan. Instead of performing real evaluations of projects and advocating for real changes to its transportation plan, VTA once again plans to shift spending priorities, adjust tax revenue projections, and push for sales tax increases. This year, VTA is focusing especially on preserving the three most wasteful 2000 Measure A projects: BART extension, light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge, and double tracking of Caltrain south of San Jose.

Besides appeasing the downtown delusionals, VTA also has a vested interest to turn these wasteful projects into fruition. Like our military industrial complex, VTA hires many engineers and consultants that make millions of dollars on conducting studies and plans. For years, VTA argued that planning process for these projects must continue because VTA had a great engineering staff and didn't want to lay them off. Meanwhile, VTA had no problems reducing service and laying off bus drivers and mechanics.

Unlike the last review, VTA this time plans to develop multiple scenarios that include no new taxes, a new 1/8 cent sales tax, and a new 1/4 cent sales tax. However, VTA proposes not to consider projects other than those listed on the 2000 Measure A. Without a comprehensive review and a call for new projects, what VTA is proposing is just another way to sell new taxes for ill conceived projects (example: If you don't increase the sales tax by XX, then BART won't be built, and there's no alternative except BART). Legally, there's no mandate for VTA to exclude new projects, especially if VTA is planning to place a new sales tax on the ballot. Even projects like Caltrain Metro East, which every agency refuses to study based on political grounds, is actually eligible for funding under the 2000 Measure A because it is an ACE upgrade, a project specifically listed in the 2000 Measure A.

At tonight's meeting, the staff will introduce the board on the planning process. Later this month, the board will begin discussion. The timetable calls for formal adoption of the expediture plan in September.

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.

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.

New DASH and more

Last week, VTA rolled its new buses and drivers for the DASH. For much of the week, supervisors were on hand to introduce the new service to riders and train operators as they take the streets of Downtown San Jose.

Will the new service be more punctual than the old DASH? Despite new buses and unionized drivers, the DASH still retains the old routing via Santa Clara Street. Given the long traffic light cycle in downtown San Jose, it can take a while to make a left turn from San Fernando Street onto Almaden Blvd, and the right turn from Almaden Blvd onto Santa Clara Street (considering it is a freeway on-ramp). Before the turn over, New Century drivers sometimes took a shortcut by using Almaden Avenue (a small street a block away from Almaden Blvd) to get from San Fernando to Santa Clara. VTA drivers have yet to use such shortcuts to make the service more punctual.

Alum Rock - Eastridge light rail

The lines that were specifically excluded from the COA are the light rail lines. Since light rail is a fixed guideway system, there's little flexibility to make service changes on light rail. However, because light rail is more expensive to operate, a poorly designed light rail line will drain more operating resources than poorly designed bus lines.

Has VTA learned anything after finishing all these light rail extensions (Tasman East, Capitol, and Vasona)? It doesn't appear so when the VTA board recently approved a supplemental environmental impact report for the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge along Capitol Expressway.

This light rail extension was proposed as a part of the Downtown-East Valley major investment study (MIS) back in 1999 and 2000. The MIS specifically recommended light rail from downtown to Alum Rock via Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue, light rail from Alum Rock to Capitol light rail station along Capitol Expressway, and BRT along Monterey Highway.

The 2000 Measure A contained language for light rail on Santa Clara Street/Alum Rock Avenue, and from Alum Rock to Eastridge via Capitol Expressway. If, according to the language, light rail is constructed on Santa Clara Street and Capitol Expressway, it would replace the current 522 between downtown San Jose and the east valley.

However, due to narrow street width, funding shortage and conflict with the BART extension, light rail on Santa Clara Street is not going to happen. That means the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge won't help those who are traveling downtown. Would anyone ride the light rail for more than an hour to downtown through Milpitas when it takes less than half an hour on the 522? After three years since its opening, the Tasman East/Capitol light rail extension is not well used except the Great Mall station.

If VTA does not intend to force Eastridge riders to transfer to get to downtown, VTA would have to continue operating the 522 along Capitol Expressway even if light rail were extended. Without cutting some bus service, as in most rail extensions, VTA is significantly increasing its operating cost with little increase in ridership and fare revenue.

One of the expressed goals in the COA is to increase farebox recovery, yet the same agency is planning rail extensions that would do the exact opposite.

VTA May update

The southbound platform at Santa Clara station will open Monday, May 21, 2007. However, some construction activities will continue. Lines 72 and 73 will be stopping on 2nd Street north of Santa Clara Street. It is ridiculous that these two lines stop there since these two lines stop south of Santa Clara Street for the northbound direction on First Street. Furthermore, these two lines turn east on San Fernando Street and don't serve the Paseo de San Antonio station.

Monday, May 21 is also the beginning of seven public meetings on the COA proposal:

Monday, May 21, 3 p.m.
Hillview Branch Library Community Room
1600 Hopkins Drive, San Jose, CA 95122

Monday, May 21, 6 p.m.
Great Mall Community Room
447 Great Mall Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035

Wednesday, May 23, 3 p.m.
Lucie Stern Community Center Fireside Room
1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301

Wednesday, May 23, 6 p.m.
Mountain View City Hall Council Chambers
500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94309

Thursday, May 24, 3 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Gilroy City Hall Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020

Thursday, May 31, 3 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Campbell Community Center Activity Room
1 West Campbell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008

Tuesday, June 5, 3 p.m. & 6 p.m.
San Jose City Hall, W-119
200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113

The complete COA proposal is available here.

On Wednesday, May 23, VTA will also be holding a meeting at the San Jose City Hall on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Avenue corridor. With the unlikelihood of building light rail in the corridor, given the funding shortage and conflict with possible BART construction, VTA is proposing bus rapid transit with future conversion to light rail.

May 23rd, 6:00-8:00 p.m. at San Jose City Hall, in the Council Chambers.

Is the 2000 Measure A becoming a lost cause?

A quick read over the minutes of the 2000 Measure A Project Advisory Committee meeting on 5/11 reveals a sad future for VTA. The 2000 Measure A is slowly losing its purpose of transporting people and becoming just a list of pork barrel projects for the consultants and the construction industry.

Alum Rock-Santa Clara light rail - VTA is "exploring a modified version of the light rail alternative, which would operate on the eastern side of the corridor on Alum Rock Avenue between Five Wounds Church (Near U.S. 101) and Capitol Avenue/Capitol Expressway with Eastridge as the final destination."

If this alternatives goes through, it would render this light rail project useless for transportation. Currently, two bus routes (64 and 522) operate the entire length of Alum Rock-Santa Clara corridor between Capitol Avenue and Downtown San Jose. This alternative would make transit inferior by either duplicating light rail service with existing bus service, or force passengers to transfer from light rail to bus (or BART) at Five Wounds Church on their way to Downtown San Jose.

The logic for advocating a shortened light rail is clear: The politicians want light rail on the Alum Rock-Santa Clara corridor, but the project is facing diffculty given the restricted street width and the duplication with the BART subway between the Five Wounds Church and Downtown San Jose. VTA and the politicians may want East Valley passengers to transfer from light rail to BART to get to downtown, but with less than two miles from downtown, this idea (along with BART itself) only wastes tax money and creates inconvenience.

San Jose Airport People Mover - VTA is proposing a three-station people-mover system connecting the Santa Clara Caltrain station (proposed BART station), the airport, and the Light Rail station on 1st Street). VTA plans to build it under the airport's runway and would use automated vehicles operating every 3 minutes.

While on the surface it seems like a good idea and it has support from the Airport commission, the details later revealed demostrate the nonviability of the project.

The Airport and VTA are considering a single station at the airport for the people mover. The people mover will not connect the terminals, and it will not connect with the long term parking lots as well as the rental car center.

The 2000 Measure A would only fund the portion between the Santa Clara Caltrain station and the airport. The connection between the airport and the light rail would be funded by the City of San Jose, but the city has yet to commit any funds.

VTA assumes only the capital cost of the people mover project. VTA General Manager Michael Burns stated that "from VTA’s perspective that VTA would not have responsibility for the operations or maintenance costs."

As it is, the proposed airport people mover is an independent subway system from two transit stations with an airport station in between. It will be funded by all airport users and will have no purpose other than getting transit riders to the airport.

While the airport people mover may create jobs for the engineers and planners, this project is simply not viable. The projected ridership (11,500 per day according to VTA) is insufficient to support a rail system. Also, without it to serve other airport facilities like long-term parking and rental car center, the airport would not be able to achieve cost effieciencies (by not having to run buses to these locations) and instead create a huge financial drain. In order to build and operate this, the airport would have to ask the struggling airlines and their passengers to pay for a service that most users would not use.

While these projects would be a windfall for the engineering consultants and the construction industry, the losers will be the everyday transit riders.

VTA's deceptive sales tactic

At VTA's Policy Advisory Committee's meeting on October 13, the committee will decide whether to forward the sales tax plan to the entire board.

After the board workshop on September 16, VTA staff tested various scenarios and is now recommending a specific expenditure plan.

VTA's proposed plan follows the SVLG's recommendation, which is a 30-year long 1/4 cent sales tax. The plan includes the following elements

• Build BART to Santa Clara freight yard by 2018. In addition to the sales tax, VTA is also counting on other revenue sources such as transit-oriented development (miniscule compared to the expenditure), reductions in expenditures (as if that has happened before on any BART project), and potential increases in tax revenue that might magically allow BART extension to be built sooner.
• "Phases" in the BART project and the purchase of BART non-standard vehicles. Unlike typical phasing, which the entire line is divided into segments and open for revenue service individually, this so call "phased" service would start with 15-minute peak headways from 2018 to 2030, which by that time, according to VTA, would have 111,500 boardings per day. (By the way, BART stations in downtown San Francisco receive service every 3 minutes to achieve this level of ridership)
• An extra $913 million extortion fee for the BART project because of the new fraudulent ridership projection recently released by VTA, primarily for "vehicles and station parking impacts."
• The next light rail extension currently planned, from Alum Rock to Eastridge, would be built by 2019, one year after BART.
• Based on SVLG's "polling data," a $717 million worth of non-transit expenditures, such as county expressways improvements, is added to support the automobiles, as well as the road building lobby.
• Although funding for Caltrain electrification (San Francisco to San Jose only) and other improvements is included, VTA irrationally cut the overall funding by 10%, per SVLG's recommendation. Unlike all other projects, VTA placed a disclaimer of how to spend the fund if electrification could not be done.
• Pocket changes such as a "gradual VTA service increase of 12.4% by 2015, followed by an increase to 24% in 2020," as well as additional funding for senior/disabled services. These improvements were included in the original 2000 Measure A. Why would anyone believe that another sales tax would help these improvements?

A few items got deferred, primarily based on SVLG's polls and limited funding:

• Light rail along the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor.
• Light rail extension from Eastridge to Nieman.
• Caltrain electrification from San Jose to Gilroy
• The real peoplemover to San Jose Airport.

In an attempt to deceive everyone, VTA has included the enhanced bus #10 (free bus service between Santa Clara Caltrain station and the Metro/Airport light rail station through San Jose Airport) as "Phase I of the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport People Mover Project," in the tax proposal, deliberately removed the key word "bus":

Implements Phase I of the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport People Mover Project, which would consist of a special premium non-stop service from the Santa Clara BART Station to the airport terminals using unique station elements to differentiate from VTAÂ’s regular service. Estimated operating cost of Phase I is $94 million from 2018 to 2036.

The real peoplemover project is considered by VTA as the "Phase II" and the funding for it is not included in this tax package. This and other deferred projects might receive funding until other projects got their funds or if other funding sources are identified.

VTA's tax plan is uninspired, essentially it is an extortion scheme for BART. Just like fried rice (which you cook with left-over rice), this proposal is a replay of the 2000 Measure A, only lousier. Because the plan has no vision other than the BART extension to Santa Clara freight yard, these transit programs, including the airport people mover, could be sacrificed to support BART and highways with the approval of SVLG, and only SVLG.

VTA insane tax talk heats up

The proposed 1/4 cent sales tax will be the main topic at the upcoming VTA board workshop scheduled this Friday.

In addition to the basic expenditure on assumptions drafted by Gonzales earlier, VTA also evaluated additional assumptions submitted by SV"L"G and the cities in the north county.

In both scenarios submitted by SVLG and the north county, the opening of the BART extension would be delayed for three years to 2018. For the SVLG scenario, the tax would be a temporary tax with a 30 year life, whereas in other scenarios would be permanent. In the case of the north county scenario, the reason for the 3 year delay is to use the extra funds to support Caltrain electrification sooner.

The SVLG version would fund roads and bicycle program, and would eliminate funds for the Downtown-East Valley light rail, along with cutting funds for Caltrain electrification arbitrarily by 10%. The reason for cutting light rail and reduce funding for Caltrain electrification is that these projects don't poll well according to SVLG. SVLG also recommended a 30 year life, rather than a permanent tax, for the same reason.

Caltrain electrification

SVLG underestimated the benefits Caltrain electrificiation, and arbitrarily splited Caltrain station and service improvements (which polled better according to SVLG) from electrification. Currently Caltrain is studying to replace the entire passenger fleet, which most of the vehicles are 20 years old, with new low floor vehicles. The new vehicles would enhance accessibility for the disabled, decrease dwell time, and further improve acceleration.

If a total fleet replacement is to be considered as a waste for Caltrain, wouldn't the total fleet replacement for light rail be a waste as well? VTA replaced its 15-year-old high floor fleet two years ago, with low floor vehicles that, other than improved accessibility, deliver no additional improvements.

Why didn't SVLG arbitrarily split BART into segments (say to Milpitas and then downtown San Jose)? Would one of the segments poll better than the other?

Downtown-East Valley

This is a comment made by the City of San Jose (included in the VTA workshop packet) that demostrated the city's lack of knowledge in transportation:

The Mayor asked for both full and partial light rail options to be brought forward. That means single car light rail all the way down Alum Rock and Santa Clara streets and single car and multi-car light rail down Alum Rock to stop at the BART station at Alum Rock with passengers going down Santa Clara Street to change to bus rapid transit at the Alum Rock Station.

Similarly, bus passengers going up Santa Clara who want to proceed up Alum Rock would change to light rail. The mayor wants the full range of options considered and not just bus rapid transit or single car light rail all the way up or down Santa Clara and Alum Rock. Only then will the San Jose members be in a position to sort out the best option the area.

VTA did not study a light rail extension from Capitol Avenue to 28th Avenue and shouldn't be. Today, passengers riding along that corridor between downtown and East San Jose have a one-seat ride. Building light rail to 28th Avenue means that these passengers would have to transfer between vehicles. Although passengers from the east to downtown could transfer to BART (as Gonzales and SVLG would want them to) for a rail-only trip, most passengers won't because of the high cost involved, along with the inconvenience of walking to and from the subway stop for otherwise a 10-minute bus ride.

If they support BART because it would eliminate a transfer for some out-of-county residents, why would they support a half-ass light rail extension that would add a transfer for in-county residents along the most utilized transit corridor?

San Jose Airport People Mover

Yoriko Kishimoto of the Palo Alto City Council asked about the People Mover, and VTA responded that the project is currently under study. Despite all the promises of a people mover today, the reality is that the project won't go anywhere.

San Jose voters approved a measure in March 2003 that allowed the airport to expand without the people mover to the light rail station on North First Street. The people mover was included in the original expansion as a way to mitigate the anticipated increase of airport traffic: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.16.03/expansion-0303.html

The expansion of the people mover to the other side of the airport is more expensive and complex than to go to the light rail on North First Street. Although having the people mover going under the runway (rather than going around) would shorten the trip time significantly, it seems rather unlikely due to the security sensitivities after 9/11. Also, we don't know who is going to pay for the operating cost of the people mover.

The likely case is that passenger from BART, just like Caltrain and light rail passengers, would have to take bus #10 to get to the airport, even with an extra 1/4 cent sales tax.