At this Friday's VTA workshop, the board will discuss the agency's budget outlook. Given the economic condition, VTA is predicting budget deficits for the next two fiscal years. (VTA has a two-year budget cycle).
VTA is expecting declines in sales tax: a 6.75% reduction from this fiscal year (FY 09) to last fiscal year (FY 08), an additional 5% reduction in FY10 from FY 09, and a 3% reduction in FY 11 from FY10.
On top of that, VTA will lose transit funding from the state because of the state budget situation.
Currently, VTA has an operating reserve of more than $50 million. According to VTA's projection, that reserve will disappear by next year. In the next two years, VTA is projecting a combined operating deficit of $78 million.
Stimulus funds
Contrary to a report by Gary Richards published earlier today, MTC has recommended not to use any of the regional funds for the Transbay Terminal train box project, largely because of the extra $8 billion funding for High Speed Rail pushed by President Obama. MTC's recommendation, however, would provide stimulus funds for a BART connector to Oakland Airport.
While funding to transit agencies have increased, some transit advocates want all the money to go to transit agencies and expressed opposition to the airport connector project.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Surprise stimulus gift to High Speed Rail
Earlier today, the House and Senate settled on a stimulus package that's worth just less than $800 million. On the transit side, the final stimulus package will mirror the version approved by the Senate: $8.4 billion will be distributed to transit agencies based on established formulas and with an additional $5.5 billion to be spent on transit and highway projects selected by the Department of Transportation.
Some expressed disappointments that funding for New Starts projects is not included in the final bill (which was actually included at $750 million, a reduced amount from the house version). Some also thought the stimulus package should include direct operating funds to backfill loss state and local funding.
The biggest surprise is funding for High Speed Rail programs. HSR program was not specifically included in the House version of the bill. Later the Senate added $2 billion. During the conference negotiations, the committee agreed to increase HSR funding to $8 billion. According to reports, the increase was urged personally by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The sudden increase in HSR funding can certainly help to accelerate projects. Earlier this week, MTC released a plan on how to spend the stimulus funds. Under MTC's plan, projects that are almost ready to go but lack funding received priority, which included the people mover connection to Oakland Airport and the underground train box at the Downtown San Francisco Transbay Terminal. VTA would also receive stimulus funds on a formula basis to replace aging buses with hybrids.
Some delusionals were quite disappointed that the BART project was not included in the stimulus package. However, that project was not in a position to benefit from the package anyhow. Under the best case scenario, construction would not be ready for another 3-4 years in the minimum, which runs counter to the intent of the stimulus bill: to create jobs soon as a way to recover from the economic slump. Also, the BART system is not compatible with High Speed Rail. Carl Guardino and other VTA boneheads insisted that regional trains and long distance trains cannot share infrastructure, and they actively advocated against sensible proposals like Caltrain Metro East, which would have certainly benefited from the Prop 1A as well as the stimulus package.
Some expressed disappointments that funding for New Starts projects is not included in the final bill (which was actually included at $750 million, a reduced amount from the house version). Some also thought the stimulus package should include direct operating funds to backfill loss state and local funding.
The biggest surprise is funding for High Speed Rail programs. HSR program was not specifically included in the House version of the bill. Later the Senate added $2 billion. During the conference negotiations, the committee agreed to increase HSR funding to $8 billion. According to reports, the increase was urged personally by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The sudden increase in HSR funding can certainly help to accelerate projects. Earlier this week, MTC released a plan on how to spend the stimulus funds. Under MTC's plan, projects that are almost ready to go but lack funding received priority, which included the people mover connection to Oakland Airport and the underground train box at the Downtown San Francisco Transbay Terminal. VTA would also receive stimulus funds on a formula basis to replace aging buses with hybrids.
Some delusionals were quite disappointed that the BART project was not included in the stimulus package. However, that project was not in a position to benefit from the package anyhow. Under the best case scenario, construction would not be ready for another 3-4 years in the minimum, which runs counter to the intent of the stimulus bill: to create jobs soon as a way to recover from the economic slump. Also, the BART system is not compatible with High Speed Rail. Carl Guardino and other VTA boneheads insisted that regional trains and long distance trains cannot share infrastructure, and they actively advocated against sensible proposals like Caltrain Metro East, which would have certainly benefited from the Prop 1A as well as the stimulus package.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Another 880 widening
Appeared on February's VTA Take One newsletter is the announcement that VTA is starting planning work for the new carpool lanes in 880 between Milpitas and San Jose.
With the latest segment between Fremont Blvd and Dixon Landing Road opened last November, the carpool lanes now exist on I-880 between San Leandro to Milpitas. VTA has proposed to reroute the 181 to operate only on I-880 between Fremont and San Jose in July, which would allow buses on the new carpool lanes and not having to switch freeways. However, the major drawback is that VTA needs to identify a park and ride lot along the route for those who want to drive to the bus.
Before 2003, the I-880 between Milpitas and San Jose only had 2 lanes in each direction, which was unusually narrow. Because of the chronic congestion in both directions, 180 buses often rerouted onto Old Oakland Road. Even with the new lanes opened in 2003, the congestion came back eventually. Today, while the northbound 181 buses can run at full speed on the freeway in the afternoon, the congestion in the other direction can still require southbound buses to use Old Oakland Road.
Does it make sense for VTA to spend funds to widen the same freeway again even though it claims to have enough funds (by shortchanging transit projects elsewhere) to build BART to Berryessa? Because of the way VTA segregates transit and highway funds, it is virtually impossible for a transit project to replace a highway project, even through it has occurred elsewhere. Even with light rail in the freeway median, VTA still managed to build new carpool lanes that parallel light rail. VTA's segregation of funds and continuing support for more freeway expansions has and will undercut transit.
With the latest segment between Fremont Blvd and Dixon Landing Road opened last November, the carpool lanes now exist on I-880 between San Leandro to Milpitas. VTA has proposed to reroute the 181 to operate only on I-880 between Fremont and San Jose in July, which would allow buses on the new carpool lanes and not having to switch freeways. However, the major drawback is that VTA needs to identify a park and ride lot along the route for those who want to drive to the bus.
Before 2003, the I-880 between Milpitas and San Jose only had 2 lanes in each direction, which was unusually narrow. Because of the chronic congestion in both directions, 180 buses often rerouted onto Old Oakland Road. Even with the new lanes opened in 2003, the congestion came back eventually. Today, while the northbound 181 buses can run at full speed on the freeway in the afternoon, the congestion in the other direction can still require southbound buses to use Old Oakland Road.
Does it make sense for VTA to spend funds to widen the same freeway again even though it claims to have enough funds (by shortchanging transit projects elsewhere) to build BART to Berryessa? Because of the way VTA segregates transit and highway funds, it is virtually impossible for a transit project to replace a highway project, even through it has occurred elsewhere. Even with light rail in the freeway median, VTA still managed to build new carpool lanes that parallel light rail. VTA's segregation of funds and continuing support for more freeway expansions has and will undercut transit.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Transit being thrown under the bus?
The latest development in the Senate does not appear promising for transit:
An example of a sad reality in the U.S. Senate where bipartisanship means capitulations that impact local constituents. An even sad fact is that the Democratic Party still isn't able to "screw the other party" like the Republicans did during the Bush years.
Whatever stimulus funds towards transportation should be given with flexibility and strict accountability. Big cities these days don't need new highways, either they got too much of them or don't have room for them. However these cities, including smaller ones, have urgent needs for transit and maintenance, which keep jobs that already exist and create new ones.
But since then, certain senators — including, shamefully, California’s very own Barbara Boxer — have proposed to gut the already-paltry transit stimulus and to redirect new money toward highways.
An example of a sad reality in the U.S. Senate where bipartisanship means capitulations that impact local constituents. An even sad fact is that the Democratic Party still isn't able to "screw the other party" like the Republicans did during the Bush years.
Whatever stimulus funds towards transportation should be given with flexibility and strict accountability. Big cities these days don't need new highways, either they got too much of them or don't have room for them. However these cities, including smaller ones, have urgent needs for transit and maintenance, which keep jobs that already exist and create new ones.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Around the valley
Palo Alto Caltrain station
The station reconstruction at Palo Alto has been completed. Part of reconstruction was to create an ADA-compliant pedestrian underpass. Prior to the reconstruction, the station had an at-grade crossing to allow crossing by the disabled because the ramps for the existing tunnels were too steep.
Caltrain essentially upgraded one of the existing pedestrian tunnels. That tunnel pictured was dark and smelly before the reconstruction. The renovated tunnel now has skylights and fluorescent lighting. The urine-odor also disappeared as well.
Highway 17 Express
Santa Cruz Metro, the agency that operates the Highway 17 Express, placed new low floor buses in service on the Highway 17 route. It is interesting because low floor buses generally have lower capacity than high floor buses. Besides the loss of seats, these buses do not have underfloor luggage area like the older buses.
Ridership on the Highway 17 Express has grown continuously when the service was merged with the Amtrak connector in 2004. The farebox recovery for the route is now over 50%, compared to about 15% for the entire VTA system. At times the buses are packed with UC Santa Cruz students heading home for the weekends and long holidays. One has to wonder why Santa Cruz Metro did not opt to increase capacity by using larger buses and instead purchase buses with lower capacity.
State funding cuts
The loss of state funding for many transit operators has now translated into fare increase and/or service reductions. Monterey-Salinas Transit has recently instituted a large 25% fare increase! The one way trip on the 55 from San Jose to Monterey has gone up from $8 to $10. San Benito County Transit, which connects with VTA in Gilroy, has eliminated bus service from 10 am to 2 pm in Hollister. AC Transit is also considering a fare increase even though voters approved a parcel tax to provide more funding for AC Transit's operation in the East Bay.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Evacuation instruction
As a result of last year's light rail derailment, VTA finally put meaningful information on emergency evacuation on its light rail (as supposed to the car card earlier). This information is similar to those at Muni and BART. Like BART, VTA put drawings on how to get out of trains on elevated structures or in tunnels, even though VTA only has over a mile long elevated structure in Milpitas and a 1/4 mile subway under San Jose Diridon station.
Friday, January 09, 2009
HSR Authority proceeds with project level EIR
With the approval of Prop 1A last November, the HSRA is now in charge of a monumental task to build a high speed rail system in California.
Local
HSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration have announced that they will prepare environmental documents for the San Francisco-San Jose HSR segment. Public meetings have been scheduled later this month:
San Mateo County: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California, January 22, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
San Francisco: San Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, 6th Floor (Rooms 673-674), San Francisco, California, January 27, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.
Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, Great America Meeting Rooms 1 & 2, Santa Clara, California, January 29, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The environmental document approved in 2007 was programmatic-level, largely without detail information on specific designs and mitigation measures. The environmental document that they will prepare is project level, which will include details omitted in the prior documents.
Meanwhile, the HSRA will seek an agreement with Caltrain, which owns the rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose. Although some have a very ambitious vision for the corridor, it could take a long time to implement (if not scaled down) because of the difficulty constructing in a highly active rail corridor (Caltrain service would continue) as well as obtaining matching funds mandated by Prop 1A.
State
Because of the state's budget crisis and poor economy, the state treasurer hasn't sold any of the HSR bonds needed to finance the consultant work. The agency could soon be running out of cash.
Although the wisdom of using state bonds to finance this project is certainly debatable, there's also a clear need to have a vision for an integrated statewide rail network. It is important to note that the same corridor for intercity high speed trains could be used by regional commuter trains.
One of the top reasons for opposing the BART project is that BART trains simply aren't compatible with high speed rail. The money that would be spent building BART tracks could only run trains as far as from Richmond. If VTA were more wise and visionary, it would have invested in an integrated network connecting the Central Valley and beyond.
Federal
Initially, Barack Obama's victory gave high hopes and expectations that the federal government would provide strong support for high speed rail and other transit projects throughout the country. Recently, some advocates are concerned that high speed rail could be left out of Obama's priorities.
Athough Democrats tend to be in support of pro-environmental programs, environmentalists are just one of many fractions in the Democratic coalition competing for attention. Groups that tend to support the existing highway based paradigm include labor unions, which are a major base of the Democratic Party. In addition, the Democratic administrations also tend to be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, which only made the competition between various interests more intense.
Local
HSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration have announced that they will prepare environmental documents for the San Francisco-San Jose HSR segment. Public meetings have been scheduled later this month:
San Mateo County: SamTrans Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California, January 22, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
San Francisco: San Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, 6th Floor (Rooms 673-674), San Francisco, California, January 27, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.
Santa Clara County: Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, Great America Meeting Rooms 1 & 2, Santa Clara, California, January 29, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The environmental document approved in 2007 was programmatic-level, largely without detail information on specific designs and mitigation measures. The environmental document that they will prepare is project level, which will include details omitted in the prior documents.
Meanwhile, the HSRA will seek an agreement with Caltrain, which owns the rail corridor between San Francisco and San Jose. Although some have a very ambitious vision for the corridor, it could take a long time to implement (if not scaled down) because of the difficulty constructing in a highly active rail corridor (Caltrain service would continue) as well as obtaining matching funds mandated by Prop 1A.
State
Because of the state's budget crisis and poor economy, the state treasurer hasn't sold any of the HSR bonds needed to finance the consultant work. The agency could soon be running out of cash.
Although the wisdom of using state bonds to finance this project is certainly debatable, there's also a clear need to have a vision for an integrated statewide rail network. It is important to note that the same corridor for intercity high speed trains could be used by regional commuter trains.
One of the top reasons for opposing the BART project is that BART trains simply aren't compatible with high speed rail. The money that would be spent building BART tracks could only run trains as far as from Richmond. If VTA were more wise and visionary, it would have invested in an integrated network connecting the Central Valley and beyond.
Federal
Initially, Barack Obama's victory gave high hopes and expectations that the federal government would provide strong support for high speed rail and other transit projects throughout the country. Recently, some advocates are concerned that high speed rail could be left out of Obama's priorities.
Athough Democrats tend to be in support of pro-environmental programs, environmentalists are just one of many fractions in the Democratic coalition competing for attention. Groups that tend to support the existing highway based paradigm include labor unions, which are a major base of the Democratic Party. In addition, the Democratic administrations also tend to be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans, which only made the competition between various interests more intense.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Thursday's VTA board meeting
Tomorrow the VTA board plans to approve a "full funding" plan for the BART project. That full funding plan only includes the segment to Berryessa (Flea Market), which is the segment that VTA is trying to obtain federal funding for. That "full funding" plan is necessary to release additional funds in Alameda County needed for BART to build a line from the Fremont station to Warm Springs, in which VTA will pick up construction from there on.
Although it may seem like an outcome of the Measure B vote, the Berryessa segment is actually a project that VTA could undertake without Measure B. VTA intentionally delayed in committing a feasible funding plan so that VTA could pretend that they really need the tax. Perhaps Measure B opponents like Rick DiNapoli and Bill Baron were right that the tax was actually to backfill VTA's inefficient operation. Unfortunately, VTA and SVLG was able to deceive voters into believing that VTA is not involved with Measure B and the BART project. They needed to sucker voters who professed to dislike VTA into giving more money to the same agency.
While VTA is certainly the worst transit agency in the country, and that VTA itself deserves a lot of the disaffection, VTA bus and light rail service is no less valuable than other "glamorous" and "popular" transit like Caltrain and BART, especially for those who are transit dependent. It was wrong for VTA to hide itself to sell a project that it has trouble to complete. We cannot neglect the importance of VTA's service and the struggles everyday VTA riders face.
Short Range Transit Plan
Meanwhile, the VTA board is also set to approve a Short Range Transit Plan at the same meeting. Like the same plan last year, VTA is insisting that they will keep the same level of transit service for the next ten years (another unfulfilled 2000 Measure A promise to increase service) and its wage escalation rate at 3.5%. However, the plan this year assumes lower tax revenues because of the current economic downturn. Somehow, to create an illusion that no cuts would be needed, VTA also lowered its operating cost estimates from last year. Finally, VTA is still attaching the 2000 Measure A expenditure plan that was approved in 2006 on this year's SRTP. The 2006 plan assumed a 1/4 percent tax that voters never approved, and was determined by a VTA consultant to be unworkable.
Although it may seem like an outcome of the Measure B vote, the Berryessa segment is actually a project that VTA could undertake without Measure B. VTA intentionally delayed in committing a feasible funding plan so that VTA could pretend that they really need the tax. Perhaps Measure B opponents like Rick DiNapoli and Bill Baron were right that the tax was actually to backfill VTA's inefficient operation. Unfortunately, VTA and SVLG was able to deceive voters into believing that VTA is not involved with Measure B and the BART project. They needed to sucker voters who professed to dislike VTA into giving more money to the same agency.
While VTA is certainly the worst transit agency in the country, and that VTA itself deserves a lot of the disaffection, VTA bus and light rail service is no less valuable than other "glamorous" and "popular" transit like Caltrain and BART, especially for those who are transit dependent. It was wrong for VTA to hide itself to sell a project that it has trouble to complete. We cannot neglect the importance of VTA's service and the struggles everyday VTA riders face.
Short Range Transit Plan
Meanwhile, the VTA board is also set to approve a Short Range Transit Plan at the same meeting. Like the same plan last year, VTA is insisting that they will keep the same level of transit service for the next ten years (another unfulfilled 2000 Measure A promise to increase service) and its wage escalation rate at 3.5%. However, the plan this year assumes lower tax revenues because of the current economic downturn. Somehow, to create an illusion that no cuts would be needed, VTA also lowered its operating cost estimates from last year. Finally, VTA is still attaching the 2000 Measure A expenditure plan that was approved in 2006 on this year's SRTP. The 2006 plan assumed a 1/4 percent tax that voters never approved, and was determined by a VTA consultant to be unworkable.
Monday, January 05, 2009
January meetings on transit changes
Pretending that VTA can provide the same level of service as before, VTA has scheduled a series of meetings on transit changes. Essentially, most of these changes involved reduction of trips on many routes to boost frequency for lines 66 and 68.
Slight service reduction (at most a few trips) on these routes:
10, 13, 18, 27, 33, 46, 48, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, DASH
Significant service reduction on these routes:
31, 45, 63, 64, 88
Slight service increase (at most a few trips) on these routes:
25, 26, 52, 58
New Saturday service:
37 (evening service would be reduced in return)
Line proposed to be discontinued:
15
Route changes:
14, 17, 49
Schedule changes:
22, 23, 26
Conversion to regular bus from community bus:
89
Significant increase in service:
66, 68
Prior to January 2008, Line 66 and 68 operate every 15 minutes only during rush hours. Today, 66 runs every 15 minutes in the middle of the day between Milpitas and Downtown San Jose. Line 68 runs every 15 minutes during rush hours between Downtown San Jose and Santa Teresa LRT, but mostly every half hour between Santa Teresa and Gilroy. VTA is proposing to increase service for both lines to every 15 minutes throughout the day for the entire routes.
For lines 180 and 181, VTA is proposing to run 181 all day except for the evening, and reduce 180 to every 30 minutes between Fremont and Milpitas (today it runs every 15 minutes). VTA is also proposing to realign the service off Mission Blvd and I-680 and onto Mowry or Stevenson. The realignement would certainly avoid the congestion on 680 and would take advantage of the new HOV lanes opened on the 880, but VTA needs to identify a park and ride lot somewhere along the route in Fremont. Many of the riders live in Fremont (and thus don't need to take BART) but these riders can't park at the BART station.
Meeting dates and locations:
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
2:00 p.m.
Alum Rock Youth Center
Community Room
137 N. White Road, San Jose
This location is served by VTA Bus Lines 25, 45 and 71.
Monday, January 26, 2009
4:00 p.m.
Lucie Stern Community Center
Community Room
1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 35.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
2:00 p.m.
Campbell Community Center
Roosevelt Community Room
1 West Campbell Avenue, Campbell
This location is served by VTA Bus Lines 26 and 60.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Fremont Community Center
Teen Center
39770 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont
This location is served by AC Transit Lines 214 and 218.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
County of Santa Clara Issac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 West Hedding Street, San Jose
This location is served by VTA Light Rail and Bus Lines 61, 62, 66, 180 and 181.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
4:00 p.m.
Morgan Hill Community & Cultural Center
Hiram Morgan Hill Room
17000 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 68.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Gilroy City Hall
Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 19.
After these meetings, the VTA Board is set to approve this plan sometime in the Spring and implement it in July.
Slight service reduction (at most a few trips) on these routes:
10, 13, 18, 27, 33, 46, 48, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, DASH
Significant service reduction on these routes:
31, 45, 63, 64, 88
Slight service increase (at most a few trips) on these routes:
25, 26, 52, 58
New Saturday service:
37 (evening service would be reduced in return)
Line proposed to be discontinued:
15
Route changes:
14, 17, 49
Schedule changes:
22, 23, 26
Conversion to regular bus from community bus:
89
Significant increase in service:
66, 68
Prior to January 2008, Line 66 and 68 operate every 15 minutes only during rush hours. Today, 66 runs every 15 minutes in the middle of the day between Milpitas and Downtown San Jose. Line 68 runs every 15 minutes during rush hours between Downtown San Jose and Santa Teresa LRT, but mostly every half hour between Santa Teresa and Gilroy. VTA is proposing to increase service for both lines to every 15 minutes throughout the day for the entire routes.
For lines 180 and 181, VTA is proposing to run 181 all day except for the evening, and reduce 180 to every 30 minutes between Fremont and Milpitas (today it runs every 15 minutes). VTA is also proposing to realign the service off Mission Blvd and I-680 and onto Mowry or Stevenson. The realignement would certainly avoid the congestion on 680 and would take advantage of the new HOV lanes opened on the 880, but VTA needs to identify a park and ride lot somewhere along the route in Fremont. Many of the riders live in Fremont (and thus don't need to take BART) but these riders can't park at the BART station.
Meeting dates and locations:
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
2:00 p.m.
Alum Rock Youth Center
Community Room
137 N. White Road, San Jose
This location is served by VTA Bus Lines 25, 45 and 71.
Monday, January 26, 2009
4:00 p.m.
Lucie Stern Community Center
Community Room
1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 35.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
2:00 p.m.
Campbell Community Center
Roosevelt Community Room
1 West Campbell Avenue, Campbell
This location is served by VTA Bus Lines 26 and 60.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Fremont Community Center
Teen Center
39770 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont
This location is served by AC Transit Lines 214 and 218.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
County of Santa Clara Issac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 West Hedding Street, San Jose
This location is served by VTA Light Rail and Bus Lines 61, 62, 66, 180 and 181.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
4:00 p.m.
Morgan Hill Community & Cultural Center
Hiram Morgan Hill Room
17000 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 68.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Gilroy City Hall
Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy
This location is served by VTA Bus Line 19.
After these meetings, the VTA Board is set to approve this plan sometime in the Spring and implement it in July.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
