The Caltrain summits

A lot of attention is focusing on Caltrain given the budget situation and the possibility that most of the train service could be eliminated.

SVLG held a summit last Friday at Stanford mostly attended by representatives from businesses and governments. This Saturday, "Friends of Caltrain" will host a "grassroots" summit in San Carlos. The goals of both summit are to find solutions to the Caltrain funding problem and to the rally support.

The Caltrain situation is bring together political factions that have been at odds. SVLG, as we know, is behind the BART project and also supports high speed rail. On the other hand, cities like Palo Alto and Burlingame are lending support to preserve Caltrain service as they fight against the High Speed Rail Authority.

Regardless of their true intentions, it is clear that cities and businesses will hurt if Caltrain service were to be eliminated or curtailed significantly. The high tech businesses in the valley rely on Caltrain to bring employees that prefer to live in San Francisco. The cities up and down the Peninsula take advantage of Caltrain to promote downtowns and transit oriented developments. Employers like Stanford University depend on Caltrain to reduce traffic and cut down the parking spaces that otherwise would be required.

Some people, perhaps blinded by their pure hatred against high speed rail, think that Caltrain should be eliminated to kill any chance for high speed rail. At the same time, some high speed rail supporters suggest that high speed rail could be completed sooner if Caltrain were eliminated. But as history shows (Caltrain was closed on weekends from 2002-2004), there's no transit that can truly substitute Caltrain. There's also no room to add lanes on 101 without tearing down homes.

Given Caltrain's performance and potential, Caltrain needs and deserves a strong regional coalition in order to survive the financial crisis. If done right, Caltrain could be a catalyst for a more integrated and efficient regional transit system. If groups on both sides of the high speed rail issue can work together to save Caltrain, it is possible that they could agree on a high speed rail scenario that is integrated, achievable, and does not create unnecessary fear.

Friends of Caltrain summit

Location: SamTrans Auditorium,

1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos (near Caltrain)

Date: Saturday, January 29, 2011 Time: 8:30 am to 2:30 pm.

My commute sucks...no thanks to SVLG

Transportation 4 America unveiled mycommutesucks.org, a web site that allows riders to express their transit experience. This is an important year as Congress will be taking action on the next federal transportation bill, which would provide billions for various transportation projects.

Guess who is in favor of cutting Caltrain service? Of course SVLG. SVLG often implies that no other taxes other than for BART could pass, but people in the North Bay and in LA suggested otherwise. Not only SVLG has done nothing to address the short term and long term funding needs for Caltrain and other transit, SVLG in the past recommended to slash funding for Caltrain and paratransit. Both are all on the chopping block this year.

With the broken budget process and SVLG's influence on corporate tax cuts from Sacramento, things will have to get much worse before it gets better. The propositions (except Prop 1F) in the upcoming special election deserve to be defeated.

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.

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.'"

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.

Measure B puts Caltrain electrification at risk

Caltrain, one of the most neglected and underfunded transit modes in the South Bay, is also one of the most successful. This year, Caltrain's weekday ridership has exceed 40,000. Even so, Caltrain is also facing difficult operational challenges with ever rising diesel prices and an aging fleet. To keep operating costs under control and allow the trains to run faster and more frequently, Caltrain has been planning to electrify the rail line for more than eight years. However, despite promises made in the 2000 Measure A, VTA has been and continues to put Caltrain electrification at risk.

Currently, the cost of electrification (between San Francisco and San Jose) and new rolling stock is estimated at $1.5 billion (year of expenditure), or about $30 million per mile, which is less than the cost to build a light rail. Along with state and federal funds, which Caltrain is trying to obtain, the rest of the cost will be shared by the three counties that Caltrain serves (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara).

Eight years ago, VTA and SVLG included funding for electrification and other Caltrain improvements in the 2000 Measure A. Because of Caltrain, that tax received endorsements from north and south county cities that otherwise wouldn't receive light rail or BART.

Since the passage of the 2000 Measure A, Caltrain outlived its usefulness as an endorsement asset and slowly became a liability for VTA. Simply, a successful Caltrain undercuts reasons to build BART. For less cost, Caltrain can take passengers to San Francisco faster. Unlike the BART extension, there's no complicated scheme to fund Caltrain operations that puts bus and light rail service in jeopardy. However, what Caltrain won't do is to appease the Downtown Delusionals.

Ever since, VTA and SVLG have done the most to drag their feet on Caltrain electrification. At the beginning, VTA proclaimed to have the money but refused to spend it because VTA said that other counties have yet to pay their share. In 2005, SVLG recommended a 10% funding reduction for Caltrain so that VTA could fund BART with a 1/4 cent tax increase. Last month, VTA decided to underfund the Caltrain's capital program [page 66], which would fund engineering work for electrification, by a measly $700,000 (out of a total VTA budget of almost $750 million this year) because VTA wants to wait until after the election.

By now, San Francisco (2003 Prop K) and San Mateo County (2004 Measure A) have funding available for Caltrain electrification, which were both passed by over 71% without any BART extensions. They're all looking at VTA to see whether it is still dragging its feet.

Today, even though VTA and SVLG have included the word "Caltrain" in the Measure B ballot language and on other Measure B propaganda in an attempt to get votes, make no mistake about it: Measure B would not provide any funds for Caltrain and would actually give VTA an excuse to negate earlier promises on Caltrain, particularly electrification. If Measure B passes, VTA could cut Caltrain funding just by interpreting the Measure B outcome as a vote against Caltrain. Is it possible that more voters support Caltrain than BART? No one knows because it is not what Measure B is really asking and it is not the question that SVLG and VTA want to have an answer for.

Also, given an MTC committee's vote to divert bridge toll funds from Dumbarton Rail to BART Warm Springs extension, VTA and SVLG have no problems with cutting one project to fund another. As we all know, Measure B would not be enough even for BART operation, maintenance, and required contributions.

There's nothing more threatening to Caltrain than Measure B. The choice is more clear than ever.

Michael Burns' true priority: shutting down free speech

At a time when one of VTA's union has threatened to strike, VTA General Manager Michael Burns instead chose to spend his time supporting an SVLG operative in frivolous lawsuits against Measure B opponents over ballot arguments.

This isn't the first time for SVLG, back in 2006, an operative unsuccessfully sued Measure A opponents for telling the truth.

This time, the arguments against Measure B are sharper and more to the point, summarizing VTA's misdeeds and deceptions over the last 8 years. Getting alarmed by the facts, Michael Burns collected "evidence" on behalf of SVLG in its cases against the opponents and he was present at all court hearings.

At the hearing earlier today, Judge Kevin Murphy threw out all the SVLG/VTA's allegations except two, which were upheld based on technicalities.

The following were challenged unsuccessfully by SVLG/VTA and were kept on the ballot argument and rebuttal:

- VTA does have the worst performing light rail in the nation

- VTA cut service resulting in lost ridership,

- VTA did cut or delay key projects (in the main argument),

- VTA has delayed key projects (in the rebuttal argument),

- VTA is not delivering on prior commitments of adding new transit service.

- John McLemore, who is a former VTA board member, a former MTC Commissioner and former member of the Santa Clara City Council., was eligible to sign the ballot argument.

The two other allegations (whether VTA would save more money than the 1/8 cent tax by improving efficiency, and whether VTA promised full funding for operation) were upheld based on narrow technical grounds. While SVLG and VTA had 10 days to prepare a case against the main argument and rebuttal, tax opponents only had 5 days to prepare a defense on the main argument and did not have any opportunity to submit evidence to defend their rebuttal.

“We succeeded in documenting their falsehoods and in submitting convincing evidence to the court under enormous time pressure," said Margaret Okuzumi, of BayRail Alliance, "Although we weren’t allowed to file evidence in response to their challenge to the No on B rebuttal, evidence that we have that readily rebuts their claims, we were able to fend off two out of three challenges to our rebuttal arguments.”

Other factors may have contributed to the judge's decision to uphold two of the claims:

-Hearing was scheduled on a Friday before the long Labor Day weekend

-Submission deadline from the registrar's office is September 2, right after the long holiday weekend.

-If opponents were to successfully defeat all claims, the judge will have to hear the countersuit against the SVLG operative on filing frivolous lawsuits.

Although inherently unfair, simply upholding one claim on each case on technical grounds allows the judge to close the cases early with no follow up lawsuits.

Given the absurdity of these lawsuits, it begs the question of what is Burns' true priority. "VTA General Manager Michael Burns should spend his time and taxpayer paid resources to fix the VTA, not to assist with lawsuits to shut down free speech that VTA finds inconvenient." said Greg Perry, a former VTA Board member who signed the main argument against Measure B.

Three ill-conceived VTA measures to defeat

This November, the ballot will be very crowded with various state and local propositions. Also on the same ballot will be three ill conceived VTA measures (B, C and D). All deserve to be defeated.

Besides the 1/8 cent sales tax, which titled Measure B to please Carl Guardino, the others are related to an old legal mandate that required VTA to submit a transportation plan to be approved by voters every six years. The first measure (C) asks voters to approve VTP 2035, which has yet to be finalized and wouldn't be approved by the VTA Board until after the election. The second measure asks voters to end the legal mandate and instead direct the "2000 Measure A Watchdog Committee" (i.e. VTA Citizens Advisory Committee) to review VTA's plan every six years.

It is strange for VTA to ask voters to approve a plan that is still in the works. It is even stranger for VTA to ask voters to give up their right to weight in on VTA's plan. Basically, it is all part of the same deal driven by SVLG delusionals to spend billions more of our tax dollars with less public oversight, esepecially when the board is appointed and not directly elected.

In order to fix VTA and the dysfunctional board, all these measures need to go down in flames this November.

VTA should conduct its own polls for new taxes

Unlike most government entities, VTA does not conduct its own polls when the board makes major decisions like tax increases. Instead, VTA has relied on private polls conducted by SVLG, or more accurately, SVLG's interpretation of it own polls, given that SVLG has consistently refused to release polling results to the public and even to some of the key VTA Board members.

SVLG may think taxpayer sponsored polls a waste of money, but it is the only kind of poll that can engage the public in the decision making process. In reality, SVLG's polls are a part of the tax campaign, especially when the polls were funded by entities like the Santa Clara Building-Trades Council that have vested interests in the BART extension. If VTA actually conducts the poll, VTA could provide likely voters more details about alternatives and trade-offs, rather than testing campaign messages that provide the most positive responses.

The full VTA Board, as well as the rest of the public (riders in particular), should have complete access to polling information when the board considers tax increases. VTA Boardmembers also should not feel threatened by private lobbying groups like SVLG because of their interpretation of their own polls. The only way to accomplish these is for VTA to conduct its own polling.

VTA plans to lower fares

With the latest proposal to lower fares, VTA is taking a U-turn from the old SVLG/Gonzales/Cipolla strategy of raising fares in an attempt to increase farebox recovery:

(to be effective September 2007)
Adult Day Pass
Current $5.25, Proposed $5.00

Express Day Pass
Current $10.50, Proposed $10.00

Youth Day Pass
Current $4.50, Proposed $4.00

Senior/Disabled Day Pass
Current $2.25, Proposed $2.00

Youth Monthly Pass
Current $49.00, Proposed $40.00

Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass
Current $26.00, Proposed $20.00

(to be effective July 2, 2007)
Community Bus single ride fare
Adult $1.00
Youth, Senior/Disabled $0.50

The proposed fare is a win for the low income, seniors, and disabled riders. For the past few years, these riders have been impacted financially (with transit service reduced as well) in order to fulfill SVLG/Gonzales/Cipolla's delusion of increasing farebox recovery rate (to help financially support the BART project). The new day pass fares will also simplify the fare payment process by rounding up to the dollar and eliminating the extra 25/50 cents needed at the farebox.

With many bus routes being shortened under the COA proposal, lower day pass fares and new community bus fares will help mitigate the fare inequality many riders face when transferring from one bus route to another or to light rail.

Transit hypocrite SVLG tries to keep the BART extension on life support

Since the failure of Measure A BART sales tax on June 6, the SVLG continues to ignore reality and lobbies local political candidates to support the BART extension. Many political candidates in San Jose, have at least paid lip service to SVLG. Mayoral candidates Chuck Reed and Cindy Chavez said that they support the BART extension through downtown San Jose, as SVLG continues to press the issue in many of the candidate debates.

For most candidates with much more issues in the city at stake, the BART extension is a minor issue. They don't want to appear as a slightly weaker candidate by opposing a project sponsored by SVLG that would supposedly bring civic pride to San Jose.

However, many of them have not personally reviewed the budget, details of the project, and plans that would build a more efficient and effective transit system than the BART extension. Only until after the November election will reality set in.

With the loud and clear message from voters against more taxes for more of the same, there is no effective solution to backfill the capital and operating funding shortfall that amounts to billions. Prop 1b, if the voters approve, would only provide a fraction of what VTA needs, with most of the funding going to highways and transit projects elsewhere in the state. Private financing isn't enough to support subway construction when building heights, along with other factors, discourage urban development similar to downtown San Francisco. In addition, SVLG has opposed to any non-sales taxes that would force its member businesses in transit hostile areas to pay for BART, which SVLG claims they need. If SVLG could have its way, its members won't have to pay any sales tax for BART either.

SVLG should not be allowed to greenwash itself through their support of the deceptive San Jose BART extension. SVLG has done more harm to all transit by their support of the BART extension and other highway projects.

Silicon Valley Losers Group

This is what SVLG should stand for after spending $650,000 on a campaign for more-of-the-same failed transportation policies and projects. After six years, voters finally saw through the false promises of the 2000 Measure A and BART, and certainly disapproved the backroom deal that created the 2006 Measure A.

Congratulations to the No on Measure A committee for conducting a low budget, truth-based campaign.

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.

Guardino chickened out on Measure A debate

"I'm not the campaign spokesperson, I'm running the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. That is a full-time job. I'm volunteering with this when I can." Carl Guardino stated for the San Jose Metro on Wednesday as his excuse for not participating in a debate on Measure A scheduled for April 25.

Despite being one of the master planners behind the flawed and dishonest Measure A, Guardino has kept himself behind the scene. On the day when the Supervisors voted to place Measure A on the ballot, Guardino was absent at that meeting. His transportation aide, Laura Stuchinsky, spoke on behalf of SVLG in support of Measure A instead. Recently Stuchinsky temporarily resigned from the VTA's Citizens Advisory Committee to focus on the Measure A campaign.

Back in 2000, while still having a "full-time" job running the SVLG, Carl Guardino was the chief campaign spokesperson for the 2000 Measure A. Why is Guardino refuse to publicly campaign and debate in support of Measure A this time around? Is he afraid to show that he has inconsistent and unfair positions on sales taxes: supporting sales tax exemptions for corporations and sales tax increases for everyone else? Or is he afraid to state his intention of transferring a large portion of the revenue from the sales tax increase to VTA, despite its record of inefficiency and dishonesty, as well as VTA's selection to build wasteful projects like BART at the expense of cost effective Caltrain and local transit improvements?

What else do Carl and SVLG have to hide?

Flip-flop alert: SVLG wants sales tax exemption for its own members, but wants you to pay more

For many years, despite its preference for backroom deals akin to the Norcal scandal and reluctance to public participation, SVLG has publicly expressed pride for consistently supporting local sales tax increases, including the Measure A this June. On the other hand, SVLG is also sponsoring legislations in Sacramento that would grant sales tax exemptions to corporations, which financially support SVLG.

Senate Bill 552 is one of the few bills supported by SVLG that would provide a permanent sales tax exemption to companies on purchases of certain types of equipment and supplies. The bill would exempt all sales taxes in California, statewide and local. The Senate analysis of the bill states that the local governments across the California would lose $1.1 billion annually, and the state government would lose another $2.1 billion. SVLG claims that SB 552 would make California more competitive for businesses and would keep more jobs in the state.

Whether you agree providing tax exemptions to corporations is a good public policy or not, you should agree that SVLG ought to be consistent with its positions on taxes. Is it okay that large companies don't have to pay sales taxes, while individuals and small businesses face a greater sales tax burden?

Answer to the people mover question: More money for San Jose

In an attempt to squeeze more funding to support the real people mover between the Santa Clara freight yard, where BART is supposed to end, and the San Jose Airport, San Jose official is now suggesting that part of the non-transit portion of the proposed 1/4 cent sales tax could be suspended to support the people mover.

In a way it is a defiance against SVLG, in which it first suggested to provide funding for non-transit expediture as a way to woo voters. If it is true that there's enough funding for pothole repairs, then why include it in the tax if not to mislead voters?

On the other hand, non-San Jose politicians were opposed to this idea. Not as much as whether the funding is needed, but where the money goes. County Supervisor Don Gage said it correctly in the article, "San Jose wants the big chunk.This is all San Jose." Generally, maintenance funding is spread around the county based on population or need; however, the people mover project mostly involve San Jose, therefore there would be a transfer of wealth if this project were funded instead.

Also, it leads to a more frightening prospect that more transfer of wealth could happen if other non-BART/non-San Jose projects have to be scarificed due to BART and/or people mover cost-overruns.

Finally, the City of San Jose could step further up to the plate by using city or airport funds, instead of taking a larger portion of the county sales tax. Or, the City could suggest eliminating the extra extortion fees for BART based on deceptive ridership projection. Or, in the extreme, a 1/4 city-wide sales tax for whatever project San Jose wants.

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.

Guardino's flip-floping

Guardino is no transportation expert, but just another pseudo-politician whose opinion is based on the direction of the wind.

In a recent Gilroy Dispatch article. You can see his flop-fliping in action.

At first, the article mentioned a recent poll by SVLG that argued that voters all over the county favor BART more than any other transit projects. Laura Stuchinsky of SVLG was quoted on the paper defending its poll: "I think a lot of folks in the county who won't have BART coming to their doorstep recognize it will be a service that will benefit the entire region."

If SVLG's intent is not to play favorism, to pick fights, or to try to defund other projects to support BART, then why are they asking for voter preference over false choices? SVLG has been saying recently that BART should be the priority because of voter preference based on the poll SVLG has conducted.

When Don Gage, a VTA director and a County Supervisor representing the south county said in the article that there are real trade-offs for BART versus other transportation improvements in the South County, Guardino flip-floped and said: "We think it's false choice to say 'it's either or' when."

Earlier they said BART over everything else, later they said that they're not trying to pick a project as a priority, classic flip-flopping!

The most ridiculous part is that Guardino is saying that other projects could get by through trimming: Guardino said that light rail improvements budgeted at $1 billion could be accomplished for $250 million if done efficiently.

So what about BART? Has SVLG ever supported measures to cut costs on BART, such as build the extension in phases, or keep more of the line on surface, or cut the the appendage from San Jose to Santa Clara that would parallel Caltrain, ACE, and Capitol Corridor (three regional rail services!!!)? Instead they've been lying about the costs ($7 billion vs. $4 billion), condoned VTA to lie about the existence of financing costs, and supported VTA to say no to the federal government's request for a real study. If SVLG thinks that others could do more with less funding, why did SVLG do just the opposite with BART?