Transit is about independence

It is nice to see transit riders having their voices heard about the transit cut backs and fare increases on San Jose Mercury News. Obviously, service reductions and fare hikes have impacted quality of life for many transit riders, especially for the seniors and disabled. They now face more difficult choices between spending money on transit and other essential expenses like rent and food. Many also have less choices on where they can work, shop, get education, and even receive medical services.

Politically, transit riders get left behind. People who drive automobiles (which most politicians are) typically do not appreciate the importance of public transportation, especially local bus service, because they find most transit unattractive to use. As such, politicians are more interested in pushing expensive and wasteful projects (like light rail and BART) while transit riders suffer from service reductions.

As unattractive as it may appear to people who have cars, local transit provides independence for the low income, seniors, the disabled, and teenagers. Although they cannot travel as fast as those with cars, transit service allows them independently to access jobs, shopping centers, schools, and hospitals/clinics on their own. Public transportation is generally safer, less expensive, more dependable, and environmentally superior than any other alternatives, including owning unsafe and uninsured clunkers to get around. Although transit services may appear optional and less important than other societal priorities, transit serves as a critical link for many to these other priorities, a means to an end.

The current transit funding crisis is threatening the future success of transit service. Like most businesses, transit services need time to grow its ridership base. It is generally unrealistic to expect full trains and buses on the first day of the new service. With periodic service reductions (and especially service eliminations), riders who come to depend on the service have to make important adjustments, and which may cause them to abandon transit altogether. Even if the service could be restored in a few years, that same rider may not come back.

The situation in the Bay Area is actually a scratch on the surface. As funding cuts affect agencies across the state, many transit providers outside the Bay Area have made even deeper cuts. Some rural transit agencies have discontinued their limited service that made intercity connections. In those areas, taxi service is much more limited, and Greyhound service is unavailable.

Of course transit also provides independence for those who drive cars. With high quality transit, car owners can choose not drive to certain places and free themselves from high parking fees, and families who might need two or more cars can cut down to just one. Parents would not have to always drive their kids around, and adult children would not have to always drive their elderly parents around.

Epitome of VTA's real structural problem

In what otherwise a somber meeting about VTA's huge deficit, general manager Michael Burns sprinkled some "good news" that FTA has allowed the BART project to compete for "new starts" fund. VTA had tried to apply for new starts fund for years but FTA repeatedly gave the project "not recommended" status. VTA gave into FTA's demand by splitting the entire project into two phases and submit the first phase to Berryessa for federal funding.

It is not good news when VTA had multiple chances to pursue superior and more cost-effective options, and when VTA riders will have to suffer as bus and light rail service reductions go into effect next month. Some VTA boardmembers apparently show no concerns for their own constitutents who ride VTA:

"With the BART project, we are planning for the next 30 years," said (Sam Liccardo) the San Jose councilman. "It would be foolish for us to forget a very promising project over the long run over what may be a very dire situation in the short run."

VTA is not a construction agency for a single rail project, but an agency that provides transit operation to about 100,000 riders daily. To blindly pursue this wasteful project, VTA concealed key information from voters about its ability to finance this project and the rest of VTA's services. Only until when voters no longer matter, they said oops and cut service anyway. Despite some of the boardmembers' claim about being green and supporting open government, they are still beholden to crooks like Carl Guardino, who then is beholden to corporations and the highway lobby.

Even though this BART project will turn out nothing but a massive failure, we riders should not allow VTA to further reduce service, but rather bring back the service that we were promised. Perhaps FTA cares if VTA doesn't.

Guardino's tax hypocrisy

It is not the first time Guardino has done this before, it is just that too many liberals have deluded themselves thinking that SVLG are still good guys when SVLG advocated for new taxes.

The latest state budget proposal contains a $700 million corporate tax cuts advocated by Carl Guardino. Guardino told the Mercury News, "All good things come to those who wait."

Combined with other corporate tax incentives approved earlier by the legislature, the state will lose $1 billion in taxes. The California Budget Bites blog put what that $1 billion could have funded:

- $170 for every student in California’s public schools;

- Enough funding to restore proposed 2009-10 cuts to higher education, In-Home Supportive Services, and services for people with developmental disabilities and to provide a cost-of-living adjustment for families in the CalWORKs Program; or

- Almost as much as the General Fund’s portion of the proposed increase in Vehicle License Fees ($1.2 billion).

Essentially we are asked to pay more while corporations Guardino represents pay less.

Like other public services, public transit has fared poorly under the budget proposal. According to California Transit Association, the budget proposal calls for the elimination of the State Transit Assistance funds, which reduce transit funding by half a billion, on top of the cuts implemented by the legislature in previous years. CTA calls this as the "Armageddon Scenario."

Because of the steep funding cuts, various transit agencies are requesting federal stimulus funds to backfill loss state funding under the "preventive maintenance" category.

The only consistent position on taxes from SVLG is that the little guys should pay more of it through various sales taxes and fees and the big corporations pay less through various corporate tax cuts. SVLG is no way progressive. It only pretends progressive when it campaigns for more sales taxes.

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.

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.

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.

Guardino robs everyone to pay for his pet project

In an effort orchestrated to promote Measure B, the California Transportation Commission plans to allocate $239 million to backfill whatever VTA wasted on the BART project. Gary Richards, as biased as usual, neglected to mention that Carl Guardino, the brainchild of Measure B, sits on the CTC. How could the timing be more perfect to create an illusion that VTA could afford BART?

Guardino and SVLG will do whatever they can before the election to create that illusion. The only news that they will withhold until after the election is the ugly reality of further transit cuts. 7 years ago, just 5 months after the 2000 Measure A passed, VTA announced its first transit cut.

Rather than a real "momentum" as the MTC spokeperson claimed, it is just another zero-sum game, like the diversion of funds from the Dumbarton Caltrain extension. An ugly reality is that the Bay Area just lost $238 million in transit funds this year alone because of the state budget crisis. With the current state of the economy, expect further cuts in transit funds in the years to come.

Other than that Guardino scored political points to deceive voters, what has the Bay Area really gained?

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.

Guardino should spend his own money to put his tax measure on the ballot

Carl Guardino, through his chief surrogate, continues to insist that his private polls are indeed private polls. According to the Mercury News, Guardino did not reveal the polling results even to some of the key VTA Board members, who will decide whether to place the tax on the ballot next week.

The VTA Board should not reward SVLG for its commitment to secrecy by placing the tax measure on the ballot for free. SVLG, like other groups, can always place their own initiative on the ballot through the signature gathering process. If SVLG and its cohorts are willing to spend $2 millions on a campaign, SVLG can certainly pay a buck or more per signature to get it on the ballot.

Another county tax increase on the ballot in Nov?

Two years after the defeat of 2006 Measure A, the county is once again considering placing some type of a tax or fee increase in November to fill the shortfalls in the county's budget.

Included in the staff report is the "lessons learned" from the failed 2006 Measure A campaign. The first lesson, quoted in the Mercury News article, is that Measure A was "An awkward marriage of two unrelated issues: transportation and healthcare." The second lesson is "The perception of a backroom deal between the County and VTA that undermined voter trust and linked the issues to other concurrent scandals."

The county can still insist there was no backroom deal, but if that Measure A had passed, it was certain that SVLG would do whatever necessary to pressure the county into transferring funds to VTA for BART to San Jose.

Although the report didn't explicitly say so, Measure A failed largely because of the partnership with Carl Guardino, who suggested that the county would not pass its own tax without his group's participation:

"Most voters first heard about the tax proposal through a series of news articles in early January 2006 that focused on a backroom deal with VTA, built around private polling conducted by supporters of extending Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to San Jose. As Measure A was unveiled to voters, the focus should have been on the failing healthcare system in Santa Clara County and the risk of losing vital trauma services, mental health services, child protective services, emergency preparedness and response, and healthcare access."

Two years later, the county isn't the only entity interested in a county-wide tax increase. VTA, who would've shared revenue with the county two years ago, is now all on its own. That same dilemma comes back: that having a county tax and a VTA tax on the same ballot will render the VTA tax, if not both, unwinnable.

Carl Guardino, who wants to spend billions on construction contracts to feed the downtown delusionals, suddenly becomes all conservative about county taxes as quoted in the Mercury News: "We're living in a time nationally and statewide where folks are very, very concerned about the economy. People need to have the 'WIIFM' - What's-In-It-For-Me."

We know what's in the county tax for Carl Guardino: A guarantee that a VTA tax will fail at the ballot box.

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.

Boneheaded CARB regulations hurt transit riders

The outcome is clear: the hydrogen fuel cell technology is not ready for primetime.

Why is it relevent? According to the timetable set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), VTA will need to purchase more of these as it replaces older buses.

In order to comply with regulations over transit bus emissions, VTA, along with many transit agencies in the Bay Area, made a choice eight years ago to continue operating diesel buses rather than switching to an alternative fuel such as CNG. In return for not switching to CNG, VTA agreed to experiment and to eventually switch to hydrogen fuel-cell buses. Funding for fuel cell buses was included in the 2000 Measure A.

Three years ago, VTA began its experiment with three fuel cell buses in operation. Because these buses were not as reliable, they were placed as extra unscheduled runs on various routes. The drivers and machanics had to be specially trained to operate and maintain these vehicles. Even though the experiment was officially over, these buses are still operated the same way today as they were three years ago.

While the fuel cell buses may be ready eventually, VTA is running out of options. Diesel hybrid buses, despite their benefits, are not yet approved for use by CARB.

Under a waiver by CARB, San Francisco Muni introduced hybrid buses last year. The hybrids not only reduce pollution and save fuel, they provide a quicker acceleration suitable for busy San Francisco streets. Hybrids have been tested in environments such as New York and Seattle before being introduced in San Francisco.

While CARB's insistence of pushing the fuel cell technology could be viewed as visionary, riders and operators alike prefer more economical and practical solutions. Diesel and hybrid buses, despite their pollution, are still cleaner than the automobiles riders could've driven.

In order to make transit an attractive option to automobiles, transit has to be both affordable and reliable, which neither fuel cell buses can provide for now. CARB will do more for the environment by encouraging transit use than by their boneheaded push for a new technology.

Nonsense on BART from Reed and Liccardo

BART is the ingredient that will destroy transit in the Silicon Valley.

San Jose Mercury News printed an op-ed from Chuck Reed and Sam Liccardo, responding to Scott Herhold's column expressing opposition to the BART project.

The op-ed essentially represented SVLG/VTA's view of staying the course on the BART project, when, almost eight years after passing the 2000 Measure A, VTA has constructed nothing and the agency is looking forward to another tax increase.

This op-ed deserves a response.

"Several experts have studied less-costly transit alternatives to BART for this corridor, and, without exception, those studies prove the axiom that "you get what you pay for." If we want more than 100,000 weekday commuters to use transit along that corridor, BART remains the only means - by a wide margin - to that goal."

VTA never truly studied other transit alternatives in the corridor. VTA actually sabotaged MTC's studies that would've considered other transit alternatives in the corridor between Fremont and San Jose. Other agencies in the Central Valley are interested in upgrading ACE into a High Speed Rail like service to San Jose. VTA is actually against these proposals because they compete with BART. On the other hand, BART will not provide direct service from the growing Tri-Valley and Central Valley.

"In fact, the BART extension would carry more riders in this county by 2030 than all of our existing forms of transit today - bus, light rail and Caltrain combined."

In Los Angeles, the Red Line subway carries about 127,000 riders per day, and its bus system carries over a million riders per day. It is a no-brainer to figure out that the BART extension cannot have more riders than all the other services that VTA runs, and our urban environment is more similar to LA.

"Mr. Nakadegawa characterizes the 71 percent fare-box return projection as too ambitious, yet our experience tells us otherwise. Within months of completing the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport, the agency recovered 70 percent of its operating costs through fares."

71% farebox recovery is not realistic. When the BART-SFO extension was proposed, backers of that extension suggested the line would generate a fare surplus. Because of that miscalculation on the farebox recovery, SamTrans almost went bankrupt.

Backers today say 71%, which means more like 40% if it is built. As a transit rider, would you accept fare increases and service reductions to pay for the shortfall? As a taxpayer, would you accept more sales tax increases?

"With several residential high-rises under way now in San Jose's downtown core, and with high-density zoning approved near transit stops in Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, the stations will have a clearly urban character. With or without BART, the future will bring even greater population density."

Although San Jose and Milpitas are building higher density, the density proposed will not generate enough riders, and the density needed to generate enough riders will not receive community support.

Downtown San Jose can only build so high (and therefore so dense) because of the airport conflict. Perhaps SVLG, Reed and Liccardo would have preferred that Ernie Renzel built the airport further away from downtown so that downtown could actually have a real skyline and not having to decide between economic benefits generated by real estate and the airport.

As much as Renzel shortchanged downtown San Jose, SVLG and others are shortchanging transit with BART. If San Jose were visionary, it wouldn't have picked BART to catch up with Oakland. Proposals like Caltrain Metro East are much more visionary, cost less to taxpayers, suitable to the suburban environment, and actually connect to new developments in Central Valley.

Roy Nakadegawa spent decades to improve transportation and he is not beholden to downtown and construction lobby. People like him oppose BART not because they oppose mass transit (which they don't), but because they want a type of mass transit that won't shortchange others.

Common sense from Scott Herhold

San Jose Mercury columnist Scott Herhold highlighted why the BART extension is a bad idea.

Herhold featured an "exchange" between former BART director Roy Nakadegawa, who has always opposed to the BART extension, and VTA General Manager Michael Burns.

There are some assertions from Burns that require a response from VTA Watch:

"As you know, the BART extension is a significant part of the Measure A project package that was approved by 70 percent of voters in 2000."

Although VTA has always suggested that BART is popular due to fact that the 2000 Measurea A was passed by over 70%, Burns should know that winning sales taxes doesn't need BART extensions. When he was the head of Muni in 2003, the transportation sales tax in San Francisco (Prop K) was passed by nearly 75% without promise of any new BART extension.

"Specifically, Mr. Nakadegawa's statement that the BART project is 'tremendously expensive, better suited to dense urban areas than suburban transit,' ignores the fact that BART currently serves Livermore, Pleasanton and San Mateo County well."

BART provided a service that was not, and cannot be, well utilized in those areas. It takes real money when operating nearly empty trains late at night in the suburbs. The BART SFO extension has drained so much resources out of SamTrans and its bus service never recovered to like it had before in the mid 90's before the agency committed to build BART. The Caltrain connection to the San Francisco Airport was even worse today than before.

Big city subways have standing loads during much of the day in most parts of the line. VTA will not get this level of ridership on the BART extension.

"Increasing the capacity for local streets and highways to absorb the projected growth in traffic would also be extremely costly, and the feasibility of this would have to be factored into any alternative public transit proposal."

The "congestion management" (highway planning) side of VTA has proposed a number of new carpool lanes and rebuilt interchanges along I-880 and I-680, as well as a new connector between I-880 and I-680. VTA already has funding sources dedicated to these projects.

"Nakadegawa's point that it could easily end up costing $9 billion to $10 billion has no basis in fact and ignores VTA's history of delivering 25 Measure B projects, three light rail lines, and numerous highway projects within budget and on schedule."

The BART project can cost $7-9 billion because VTA has always refused to account for the bonding cost like other non-VTA transit projects. When asked about it, the EIR states that it is a part of the "Measure A program". What a nice way to make BART look cheaper by relabeling the bonding cost into another category.

Of course, the "Measure A program" is broke. It needs at least a new quarter cent sales tax to work. The "Measure A program" includes other projects like light rail extension and Caltrain improvements. VTA could very much kill these projects to fund BART, and without making BART appearing to cost $7-9 billion.

"In 2004, the adopted project EIR projected the fare box recovery ratio was 71.2 percent and a new rider cost of $32.83, based on projected ridership of 80,000 to 100,000 trips per day, significantly less than the $100 per rider cost that Nakadegawa cites."

71% farebox recovery is too optimistic and appears fraudulent. About half of the BART's ridership is transbay, where people have to pay a toll to drive across the bay. People can drive and will continue to drive free between Fremont and San Jose. Is Mr. Burns suggesting that we should place toll booths on I-680 and I-880 to increase BART ridership?

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.

SJ Mercury releases VTA salary information

After a recent state supreme court ruling, SJ Mercury was able to obtain salary information of VTA employees along with their names and released it to the public on its web site.

The highest paid employee was General Manager Michael Burns earning just over $290k during last fiscal year. Almost all executives and top managers earn between $100k and $200k.

One of the most interesting details revealed is that there were 22 bus drivers earning over $100k during the last fiscal year. Even the highest paid light rail operator earned less than $90k. Also, four transit mechanics earned more than $100k.

Under the current contract with the ATU, the top hourly wage for a regular bus operator is $27.61, which translates to a yearly income of $57,428, assuming a 40 hour work week for the entire year. These drivers were collecting a very generous overtime pay.

In comparison, in the City of San Jose, a majority of employees earning over $100k are police officers and fire fighters, which is primarily due to employee overtime. Aides to council members advising on VTA and other issues earn between $50k and $80k.

Delusional Mercury News and "Stephen Colbert"

In its recent editorial about BART, when the Mercury News states that: "The design is expected to cost $649 million over the next 10 years," it is important to note that this amount of tax money going to engineers and consultants will be more than enough to deliver actual commuter rail or light rail service.

The BART extension was never within reach because the 2000 Measure A was sold false promises.

Another Mercury line: "Once the line is running, nobody will question the wisdom of having built it." is even more hilarious. Look at San Mateo County, the BART extension to SFO, which was supposed to generate an operating surplus for San Mateo County, is now costing over $10 million per year in unplanned operating subsidy. Is Mercury News sure that no one will question when BART costs more than what VTA and SVLG claimed and bus service had to be cut as the result?

The best, however, is from "Stephen Colbert" in the second reponse: "Now, normally when a multibillion 10-year project is proposed, that will dig up streets for years to come, most people would do a cost analysis -- not ME! I FEEL the worthiness of this pet project. And this is a good project (for Bechtel)..."

To Mr. Burns: Please stop destroying transit

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

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

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

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

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

Merc and SVLG have no choice but to dis-inform

The Mercury News and the SVLG are conducting a massive dis-information campaign about Measure A. Three editorials published today on the Mercury News supporting Measure A as the only way to save the BART project, that they're expecting that half of the Measure A tax revenue to be spent on transportation, especially BART, although that is not guaranteed, and that Measure A would support county's services.

At the same time, some voters in Sunnyvale have reported receiving a mailer from the Yes on Measure A campaign showing a Caltrain photograph. It seems clear that SVLG is deliberately misinform voters by sending mailers showing Caltrain to voters in north and south county, and mailers showing BART or highway to voters in San Jose and Milpitas, despite the fact that the language of Measure A does not mention BART or Caltrain, and that SVLG has no intention to fulfill whatever empty Caltrain promises to voters in north and south county.

The Mercury News and SVLG may have a legitimate interest in the BART project, although much of what their arguments in support of BART are mostly fraudulent. It still leaves a question why are they pushing a general sales tax and dis-inform voters instead of taking the high road and go for a specific tax. Simply, the support for BART has dropped significantly from 2000 and won't meet the 2/3 voter approval requirement, and that the region could not agree on a fair and responsible transportation tax plan to sell to the voters. In one form or another, SVLG must tell lies to the north and south county voters in order to divert their tax dollars to the subway in downtown San Jose. These lies include support for non-BART transportation projects like Caltrain, underestimation of the true cost of BART, and over projection of BART ridership.

SVLG is making fake promises to voters now and, if Measure A were to be approved, a food fight is expected at the Board of Supervisors to try to divert as much funds to BART, at the expense of other transit projects in the county as well as at the expense of county services.

Measure A is another reflection of the Silicon Valley's culture of bad government and corruption, with SVLG being at the core. Only a NO vote on Measure A can force the politicians in this county to be more honest.

The Mercury News still doesn't get it

The Mercury News published an editorial today promoting Measure A this June because of the "success" of the 1996 Measure A program, and the fact that the 1996 Measure was passed with 51.8% voter approval.

Essentially, the Mercury News is asserting that the 2/3 voter approval is almost impossible to obtain and therefore the sleazy tactic of selling specific projects as a general tax is justifed.

If we look beyond Santa Clara County, there are good reasons why we should reject this assertion.

• In November 2003, San Francsico voters approved Proposition K, a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, by nearly 75%.
• In November 2004, San Mateo County voters approved Measure A, a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, by just over 75%.
• Also in November 2004, Marin County voters passed Measure A, a 1/2 cent salex tax for transportation, by 71%

So the 70% voter approval of the 2000 Measure A in Santa Clara County, during the peak of the high-tech bubble, isn't that quite spectacular or is it?

The major difference between these taxes passed by voters in other counties and ours is that other counties tend to have honest and inclusive discussions about the funding needs and spending priorities. San Mateo County, for instance, held weekend transportation planning workshops around the county to solicit community input. Also, all of these proposals did not include any "marquee" BART extensions that are supposedly poll well (according to SVLG) but would bankrupt the counties.

Santa Clara County, once again, chose a path that limits honest discussions and public participation. Ron Gonzales, Carl Guardino, and Rod Diridon cannot accept themselves being challenged in public on questionable policies. If SVLG and other politicians believe that the county voters will support the idea of the San Jose BART extension be funded at the expense of Caltrain and local transit services, and diverting sales tax revenue from the north and south county to downtown San Jose, Santa Clara County should have taken the "high road." Santa Clara County does not have to create a smokescreen by blurring specific projects with a general tax and create confusion among voters, as a way to get around the 2/3 voter approval requirement.