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
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Can Carl Guardino be trusted?
Recently, there are rumors suggesting that a 1/8 cent tax increase will appear on the November ballot. Carl Guardino reportedly has been showing SVLG sponsored polls to various politically connected individuals asking for their support.
Pushing for a 1/8 cent tax shouldn't be a surprise after VTA was given authorization from the state last year. VTA wouldn't be pushing hard for that in Sacramento if the agency doesn't intend to place it on the ballot.
Politically, a 1/8 cent tax has an advantage: the increase is relatively small. Supporters believe that voters are more likely to support a smaller tax increase than a bigger one.
On the other hand, 1/8 cent is clearly not enough for VTA. Two years ago, VTA approved an expenditure plan that required a new 1/4 cent tax, even though not all 2000 Measure A projects would be funded. Earlier this year, VTA has admitted that even a 1/4 cent will not be enough. Why should VTA be even considering raising less than half of the money the agency says it needs?
Unlike other counties in the Bay Area, Carl Guardino and VTA are strong believers in backroom politics and do not want public participation in drafting a new tax. To date, VTA still hasn't release a spending plan with a 1/8 cent tax increase. It is likely that VTA will not release the plan until just before the August board meeting when the board votes to place a tax on the November ballot.
Even though a smaller tax increase seems appealing, a "cheap" BART is a false promise that Carl Guardino and VTA will never deliver. Eight years ago, despite warning from VTA's General Manager, Guardino claimed in the 2000 Measure A ballot argument that it "pays operating costs ... for decades without additional taxes." Only less than three years later VTA found itself in a hole, putting vital bus and paratransit services at risk. Two years ago, VTA and Guardino tried a new tax but got defeated. This time, VTA and Guardino are desperate and want some kind of tax to pass, even though it is certain that another tax increase will be needed some point in the future.
Carl Guardino could not be trusted in 2000 and still cannot be trusted today. The 2000 Measure A was not enough back then and this new tax will not be enough today. What VTA needs is not a new tax but a change in priorities, and VTA cannot change its priorities when Carl Guardino continues to drive public policy backroom with his private polls.
Pushing for a 1/8 cent tax shouldn't be a surprise after VTA was given authorization from the state last year. VTA wouldn't be pushing hard for that in Sacramento if the agency doesn't intend to place it on the ballot.
Politically, a 1/8 cent tax has an advantage: the increase is relatively small. Supporters believe that voters are more likely to support a smaller tax increase than a bigger one.
On the other hand, 1/8 cent is clearly not enough for VTA. Two years ago, VTA approved an expenditure plan that required a new 1/4 cent tax, even though not all 2000 Measure A projects would be funded. Earlier this year, VTA has admitted that even a 1/4 cent will not be enough. Why should VTA be even considering raising less than half of the money the agency says it needs?
Unlike other counties in the Bay Area, Carl Guardino and VTA are strong believers in backroom politics and do not want public participation in drafting a new tax. To date, VTA still hasn't release a spending plan with a 1/8 cent tax increase. It is likely that VTA will not release the plan until just before the August board meeting when the board votes to place a tax on the November ballot.
Even though a smaller tax increase seems appealing, a "cheap" BART is a false promise that Carl Guardino and VTA will never deliver. Eight years ago, despite warning from VTA's General Manager, Guardino claimed in the 2000 Measure A ballot argument that it "pays operating costs ... for decades without additional taxes." Only less than three years later VTA found itself in a hole, putting vital bus and paratransit services at risk. Two years ago, VTA and Guardino tried a new tax but got defeated. This time, VTA and Guardino are desperate and want some kind of tax to pass, even though it is certain that another tax increase will be needed some point in the future.
Carl Guardino could not be trusted in 2000 and still cannot be trusted today. The 2000 Measure A was not enough back then and this new tax will not be enough today. What VTA needs is not a new tax but a change in priorities, and VTA cannot change its priorities when Carl Guardino continues to drive public policy backroom with his private polls.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
High speed rail bond and Pacheco Pass opposition
Yesterday the California High Speed Rail Authority certified the final environmental impact report for the selection of the Pacheco Pass alignment between the Bay Area and Central Valley. It was an important news considering that the high speed rail bond (Proposition 1) will appear on the ballot this November.
Many environmental groups are still opposed to the selection of the Pacheco alignment and consider the environmental impact report fatally flawed.
In the meantime, the high speed rail bond is still on the ballot. Would these groups treat the bond measure separately from the environmental impact report, or would they oppose the bond measure as well because of their opposition to the environmental impact report?
There's no easy answer. Simply, for the environmental community, high speed rail is an important element in reducing greenhouses gases and change our transportation and possibly landuse pattern for the long term. For the last few years, these groups have been a champion to maintain funding to the HSRA when Governor Schwarzenegger threatened to cut the authority's budget substantially.
On the other hand, the Pacheco Pass alignment is unacceptable to them. High Speed Rail Authority chose Pacheco over Altamont primarily for political reasons (driven by Rod Diridon). Also, the Pacheco Pass alignment could eventually drive development in the Los Banos area. Some members of the environmental community believe the alignment issue can only be resolved when the HSRA is disbanded, which means the high speed rail bond measure must be defeated at the ballot box and have the process start over.
Considering a possible opposition from the environmental community, as well as key issues related to getting matching funds from the federal government and the private sector, Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani introduced a bill (AB 3034) that would amend the bond measure. That bill is currently in the state senate. It is in the best interest for all parties that the bond measure be amended to satisfy the environmental group's concerns, which would allow them to support it and ensure successful passage at the ballot box.
Many environmental groups are still opposed to the selection of the Pacheco alignment and consider the environmental impact report fatally flawed.
In the meantime, the high speed rail bond is still on the ballot. Would these groups treat the bond measure separately from the environmental impact report, or would they oppose the bond measure as well because of their opposition to the environmental impact report?
There's no easy answer. Simply, for the environmental community, high speed rail is an important element in reducing greenhouses gases and change our transportation and possibly landuse pattern for the long term. For the last few years, these groups have been a champion to maintain funding to the HSRA when Governor Schwarzenegger threatened to cut the authority's budget substantially.
On the other hand, the Pacheco Pass alignment is unacceptable to them. High Speed Rail Authority chose Pacheco over Altamont primarily for political reasons (driven by Rod Diridon). Also, the Pacheco Pass alignment could eventually drive development in the Los Banos area. Some members of the environmental community believe the alignment issue can only be resolved when the HSRA is disbanded, which means the high speed rail bond measure must be defeated at the ballot box and have the process start over.
Considering a possible opposition from the environmental community, as well as key issues related to getting matching funds from the federal government and the private sector, Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani introduced a bill (AB 3034) that would amend the bond measure. That bill is currently in the state senate. It is in the best interest for all parties that the bond measure be amended to satisfy the environmental group's concerns, which would allow them to support it and ensure successful passage at the ballot box.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
What FTA should have thought about on Charter bus regulation
With greater demand for public transportation, the new FTA charter bus regulation has threatened public transit access to sporting events. The new FTA regulation basically categorized premium fare bus service to any special event as charter service, which transit agencies cannot operate unless certain regulatory criteria have been met.
While it is clear that public transit operators should not be in the business of providing charter service for company outings and weddings, stadium service has not been considered to be a charter service. Unlike typical charter jobs, there is no external sponsor and the passengers pay individual fares for buses to the stadium.
Given that it is in the FTA's interest that the public be served, FTA should have considered when designing the new regulation:
In California, according to state laws, stadium service is not considered charter. Charter bus companies that have TCP (charter) licenses cannot legally charge individual fares on passengers to and from the stadium, which would replicate a service provided by transit agencies. To comply with FTA regulation and state laws, the team or the transit agency will have to hire charter bus companies. This is an extra burden that does not benefit the teams nor the transit operators, and definitely not transit riders.
Historically, the teams were not in the business of arranging transportation for their fans. Even if the teams were able to arrange some type of service, how will the teams get reimbursed from passengers to ensure the teams do not lose money on the service?
For the transit agencies, labor contracts limit or prohibit transit agencies from contracting work to private operators. Even if that's not the case, how will the transit agencies collect fares from individual passengers?
For riders, are they left on their own to form a club and hire a charter bus operator?
Besides the charter bus regulation, the more troubling part is that FTA is considering new regulation on school trippers, which could rule out public transit agencies from providing special trips or route deviations to serve local schools in hopes to boost demand for yellow school bus service. To address community concerns, VTA operates school trippers on lines 76, 82 and 88.
However, with limited education budget in California, forbidding transit agencies from providing service will only hurt both students and parents and will do nothing to address local traffic problems at some high schools.
While it is clear that public transit operators should not be in the business of providing charter service for company outings and weddings, stadium service has not been considered to be a charter service. Unlike typical charter jobs, there is no external sponsor and the passengers pay individual fares for buses to the stadium.
Given that it is in the FTA's interest that the public be served, FTA should have considered when designing the new regulation:
In California, according to state laws, stadium service is not considered charter. Charter bus companies that have TCP (charter) licenses cannot legally charge individual fares on passengers to and from the stadium, which would replicate a service provided by transit agencies. To comply with FTA regulation and state laws, the team or the transit agency will have to hire charter bus companies. This is an extra burden that does not benefit the teams nor the transit operators, and definitely not transit riders.
Historically, the teams were not in the business of arranging transportation for their fans. Even if the teams were able to arrange some type of service, how will the teams get reimbursed from passengers to ensure the teams do not lose money on the service?
For the transit agencies, labor contracts limit or prohibit transit agencies from contracting work to private operators. Even if that's not the case, how will the transit agencies collect fares from individual passengers?
For riders, are they left on their own to form a club and hire a charter bus operator?
Besides the charter bus regulation, the more troubling part is that FTA is considering new regulation on school trippers, which could rule out public transit agencies from providing special trips or route deviations to serve local schools in hopes to boost demand for yellow school bus service. To address community concerns, VTA operates school trippers on lines 76, 82 and 88.
However, with limited education budget in California, forbidding transit agencies from providing service will only hurt both students and parents and will do nothing to address local traffic problems at some high schools.
Friday, June 27, 2008
VTA Board meeting dates onboard vehicles
Onboard VTA vehicles is a schedule of VTA Board meetings for the rest of 2008. VTA has implemented one of the "Sunshine Law" requests from VTA Riders' Union. Two months ago, VTA staff initially resisted the proposal by offering a lame excuse that VTA has used up the 15% allocated spaces for internal promotions. Perhaps VTA has finally figured out that it is not a difficult task to let riders know when and where the VTA Board meets.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Light rail on 4th of July and more
On 4th of July, VTA will provide special light rail service to the fireworks at Discovery Meadows in Downtown San Jose.
Children's Discovery Museum station will be closed that day. The nearest station to the event site is Convention Center.
From noon til 5:30pm, light rail between Winchester and Convention Center will run every 15 minutes.
From 5:30pm, Alum Rock-Santa Teresa line will run every 10 minutes. Mountain View-Winchester line will be split into two segments. In the north end, passengers boarding between Mountain View and Champion stations will have to transfer at Baypointe to the Alum Rock-Santa Teresa line to get to downtown San Jose. That line will run every 20 minutes.
In the south end, trains will run between Winchester and San Fernando stations. Passengers to downtown San Jose can walk or transfer to a bus bridge. That segment will run every 15 minutes.
This operating plan is in many ways similar to (and is as confusing as) the plan for the San Jose Grand Prix two years ago. The only major difference is that the Grand Prix required the closure of light rail tracks in downtown.
Right after the 4th of July weekend, Ohlone/Chynoweth station will be closed for platform retrofit, the current bus bridge from Almaden will cover Ohlone/Chynoweth and will be extended to Capitol to connect with the light rail.
Santa Teresa Station temporary platform
In preparation of the light rail retrofit at Santa Teresa station, workers are constructing a temporary plywood platform between the tail tracks just south of the current platform. Santa Teresa is to remain open throughout the retrofit construction.
Capitol light Rail station
Capitol light rail station features a fancy set up of ramps and steps connecting the escalators and elevator, which all remained on their original location at their original level.
Children's Discovery Museum station will be closed that day. The nearest station to the event site is Convention Center.
From noon til 5:30pm, light rail between Winchester and Convention Center will run every 15 minutes.
From 5:30pm, Alum Rock-Santa Teresa line will run every 10 minutes. Mountain View-Winchester line will be split into two segments. In the north end, passengers boarding between Mountain View and Champion stations will have to transfer at Baypointe to the Alum Rock-Santa Teresa line to get to downtown San Jose. That line will run every 20 minutes.
In the south end, trains will run between Winchester and San Fernando stations. Passengers to downtown San Jose can walk or transfer to a bus bridge. That segment will run every 15 minutes.
This operating plan is in many ways similar to (and is as confusing as) the plan for the San Jose Grand Prix two years ago. The only major difference is that the Grand Prix required the closure of light rail tracks in downtown.
Right after the 4th of July weekend, Ohlone/Chynoweth station will be closed for platform retrofit, the current bus bridge from Almaden will cover Ohlone/Chynoweth and will be extended to Capitol to connect with the light rail.
Santa Teresa Station temporary platform
In preparation of the light rail retrofit at Santa Teresa station, workers are constructing a temporary plywood platform between the tail tracks just south of the current platform. Santa Teresa is to remain open throughout the retrofit construction.
Capitol light Rail station
Capitol light rail station features a fancy set up of ramps and steps connecting the escalators and elevator, which all remained on their original location at their original level.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Let's not forget the other Grand Jury report
Recently, Santa Clara County Grand Jury issued a report questioning Santa Clara County's participation in the Dumbarton Rail project. At the same time, MTC proposes to rediret $91 millions of Regional Measure 2 bridge tolls funds into BART extension to Warm Springs. That money would replace the $145 million operating surplus from the SFO extension, which will never be fulfilled given flawed ridership projections.
As we examine Dumbarton Rail, what we must not forget is the 2004 Grand Jury report questioning BART to San Jose. Four years later, VTA is still dysfunctional and continues to make decisions based on politics.
What we also must not forget is that Dumbarton Rail was included in the 2000 Measure A just like the BART extension. VTA added Dumbarton Rail to the measure to make the tax appear more "balanced" across regions and to get support from north county cities like Palo Alto, which were suffering from traffic congestion coming off the Dumbarton bridge and were unwilling to build new roads through wetlands and neighborhoods.
Dumbarton Rail is currently under study and is facing some challenges, not too much different than BART. Unlike BART however, it doesn't have a group of dedicated delusionals who are willing to pay for it by destroying the transit system. Dumbarton Rail simply isn't expensive enough to bankrupt any transit agency.
By any measure, focusing on Dumbarton Rail is nothing but a distraction to one of the most harmful transit projects in the Bay Area, the BART extension. It also exhibits a double standard, in which it is okay for VTA to continue spending money on BART despite the failure of the 2006 Measure A, and not okay for a project that is also supported and funded by voters in San Mateo County, Alameda County as well as the rest of the Bay Area through Regional Measure 2.
As to the proposed fund diversion, MTC should be making its decision based on the voter disapproval of the 2006 Measure A. If MTC isn't sure, MTC can wait until after the November election.
As we examine Dumbarton Rail, what we must not forget is the 2004 Grand Jury report questioning BART to San Jose. Four years later, VTA is still dysfunctional and continues to make decisions based on politics.
What we also must not forget is that Dumbarton Rail was included in the 2000 Measure A just like the BART extension. VTA added Dumbarton Rail to the measure to make the tax appear more "balanced" across regions and to get support from north county cities like Palo Alto, which were suffering from traffic congestion coming off the Dumbarton bridge and were unwilling to build new roads through wetlands and neighborhoods.
Dumbarton Rail is currently under study and is facing some challenges, not too much different than BART. Unlike BART however, it doesn't have a group of dedicated delusionals who are willing to pay for it by destroying the transit system. Dumbarton Rail simply isn't expensive enough to bankrupt any transit agency.
By any measure, focusing on Dumbarton Rail is nothing but a distraction to one of the most harmful transit projects in the Bay Area, the BART extension. It also exhibits a double standard, in which it is okay for VTA to continue spending money on BART despite the failure of the 2006 Measure A, and not okay for a project that is also supported and funded by voters in San Mateo County, Alameda County as well as the rest of the Bay Area through Regional Measure 2.
As to the proposed fund diversion, MTC should be making its decision based on the voter disapproval of the 2006 Measure A. If MTC isn't sure, MTC can wait until after the November election.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Light rail COA
According to various sources, VTA is embarking on a COA for the light rail system. VTA is trying to boost ridership on the light rail just like what the agency tried to do for the bus network last January.
With fixed infrastructure and the lack of funds to improve them, it is not clear how large of a scope the light rail COA will be. It is also not clear whether that COA will effectively address some of the chief criticisms such as:
- Light rail operates too slow through downtown San Jose.
- Light rail is too slow to get to Mountain View from South San Jose.
- Light rail is too aroundabout to get to downtown from East San Jose.
- Transfer is required from Milpitas to Mountain View and from Almaden to basically everywhere.
Some believe that light rail should've skipped downtown and head straight on the freeway to the airport. A lot of people think the Almaden light rail shuttle is a joke and should be discontinued, which VTA actually considered as a part of a 21% service reduction proposed in 2003.
Despite criticisms, light rail does work for some people. Light rail is popular for folks in South San Jose and Campbell to get to downtown, as it is the only market where light rail is actually competitive with automobiles. However, most of the jobs are not in downtown.
It is hard to imagine major operational improvements to the light rail without having significant price tags. For instance, the Mountain View-Winchester line has several single track sections that may need to be double tracked for scheduling flexibility. Also, an extra track or two may be required to provide express light rail service, an idea which VTA General Manager Michael Burns once expressed an interest in. VTA's already in a hole when it comes to money for projects, where will the money come from to expand the tracks?
It is interesting that the same group of delusionals, such as Rod Diridon, who created the light rail system are also advocates for the BART extension.
With fixed infrastructure and the lack of funds to improve them, it is not clear how large of a scope the light rail COA will be. It is also not clear whether that COA will effectively address some of the chief criticisms such as:
- Light rail operates too slow through downtown San Jose.
- Light rail is too slow to get to Mountain View from South San Jose.
- Light rail is too aroundabout to get to downtown from East San Jose.
- Transfer is required from Milpitas to Mountain View and from Almaden to basically everywhere.
Some believe that light rail should've skipped downtown and head straight on the freeway to the airport. A lot of people think the Almaden light rail shuttle is a joke and should be discontinued, which VTA actually considered as a part of a 21% service reduction proposed in 2003.
Despite criticisms, light rail does work for some people. Light rail is popular for folks in South San Jose and Campbell to get to downtown, as it is the only market where light rail is actually competitive with automobiles. However, most of the jobs are not in downtown.
It is hard to imagine major operational improvements to the light rail without having significant price tags. For instance, the Mountain View-Winchester line has several single track sections that may need to be double tracked for scheduling flexibility. Also, an extra track or two may be required to provide express light rail service, an idea which VTA General Manager Michael Burns once expressed an interest in. VTA's already in a hole when it comes to money for projects, where will the money come from to expand the tracks?
It is interesting that the same group of delusionals, such as Rod Diridon, who created the light rail system are also advocates for the BART extension.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Curtner and Branham light rail stations to reopen June 9
Curtner and Branham light rail stations will reopen next Monday, June 9, which is a week ahead of schedule. Capitol station will remain closed for one more week until June 16.
On June 16, Almaden and Oakridge stations will be closed for construction. As such, the Almaden shuttle will be suspended and be substituted by a bus bridge. Ohlone/Chynoweth station will be closed for construction right after the long 4th of July weekend.
Recent pictures of the progress at these stations:
On June 16, Almaden and Oakridge stations will be closed for construction. As such, the Almaden shuttle will be suspended and be substituted by a bus bridge. Ohlone/Chynoweth station will be closed for construction right after the long 4th of July weekend.
Recent pictures of the progress at these stations:
Monday, June 02, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
