The Commonwealth Club, along with the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State, California State Automobile Association, and SVLG, will host a forum on BART on the afternoon of April 21 at the County building. Supposedly Greg Perry of Mountain View was invited to serve as a panelist along with Cindy Chavez of San Jose, Carl Guardino of SVLG and Dennis Kennedy of Morgan Hill.
Guardino is obviously a strong supporter of that project and SVLG is bring Chavez along to prep her to become another Gonzales. Kennedy is opposed to the project but is nowhere close compared to Perry when it comes to the knowledge about VTA and the project.
Rod Diridon Sr., who got a nice job being the director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, recently removed Perry off the panel for some reason. Bay Rail Alliance and VTA Riders Union wrote letters to complain. It is no surprise that Diridon kicked Perry out because Diridon is afraid of Perry telling the truth behind the BART project. Diridon replaced with a token opposition Ron Swegles of Sunnyvale to make themselves look good.
Apparently, as reported in the ba.transportation newsgroup, the executive director of the Commonwealth Club - Gloria Duffy, is the wife of Rod Diridon. So no phone calls need to make that work, just some pillow talk!
Friday, April 15, 2005
Friday, April 08, 2005
VTA trying to cheat the system
VTA is trying to have things both ways: phase the project without phasing it.
VTA is splitting the BART project into two segments. The first segment is from Warm Springs to Berryessa, and the second segment is the stupid downtown subway and a portion that parallels Caltrain to Santa Clara. VTA plans to submit the first portion for federal funding and leave the second portion be locally and state funded.
Basically by putting the first portion to be federally funded. The cost for the federal funded portion would be smaller and thus appear more cost effective. VTA also plans to request a smaller amount, about $500 million or so, first the first segment. Since the second portion would not be federally funded, VTA could spend as much as it wants and screw cost effectiveness.
But the interesting thing to the story is that VTA intends to build both portions all at once.
Federalizing a portion of a greater project has been done before even in the Bay Area. For example, the Tasman light rail line, and the 3rd Street light rail and Central Subway in San Francisco. But the differences are that these projects, as their entirety, are more cost effective, and that they all were or to be built and planned in phases.
What VTA is trying to do is to cheat the federal government.
Aside from poor cost effectiveness and increased construction cost to VTA (due to the smaller federal funding request), VTA has cash flow problems for construction, as well as the lack of operating funds. If VTA were to build the BART project in phases, VTA's problem would be much less severe, and therefore VTA would likely argue for federalizing a segment based on these benefits. However, this is not VTA intends to do. VTA intends to build the whole project at once based on false benefits and with all the harms.
VTA could cut bus service to pay for the subway part of the project without federal oversight. Also, if cost overruns occur for the subway portion of the project, VTA could literally run out of funds and would not be able to produce matching funds for the federalized portion. Without checks and balances for the most expensive and unstable portion of the project, the foolish BART project would be another Bay Bridge East Span. Instead of a large fishing pier, it would be disconnected wide gauge track segments suitable for a train musesum displaying trains from India.
Carl Guardino of SVLG is quoted “With this innovative agreement the federal government has shown they know the answer to the 1960 song “Do You Know the Way to San Jose?” – it’s on a BART train, all the way to downtown San Jose, and onto Santa Clara.” May be he is actually talking about these trains without carrying any actual passengers.
I hope the federal government would see this crap right through.
VTA is splitting the BART project into two segments. The first segment is from Warm Springs to Berryessa, and the second segment is the stupid downtown subway and a portion that parallels Caltrain to Santa Clara. VTA plans to submit the first portion for federal funding and leave the second portion be locally and state funded.
Basically by putting the first portion to be federally funded. The cost for the federal funded portion would be smaller and thus appear more cost effective. VTA also plans to request a smaller amount, about $500 million or so, first the first segment. Since the second portion would not be federally funded, VTA could spend as much as it wants and screw cost effectiveness.
But the interesting thing to the story is that VTA intends to build both portions all at once.
Federalizing a portion of a greater project has been done before even in the Bay Area. For example, the Tasman light rail line, and the 3rd Street light rail and Central Subway in San Francisco. But the differences are that these projects, as their entirety, are more cost effective, and that they all were or to be built and planned in phases.
What VTA is trying to do is to cheat the federal government.
Aside from poor cost effectiveness and increased construction cost to VTA (due to the smaller federal funding request), VTA has cash flow problems for construction, as well as the lack of operating funds. If VTA were to build the BART project in phases, VTA's problem would be much less severe, and therefore VTA would likely argue for federalizing a segment based on these benefits. However, this is not VTA intends to do. VTA intends to build the whole project at once based on false benefits and with all the harms.
VTA could cut bus service to pay for the subway part of the project without federal oversight. Also, if cost overruns occur for the subway portion of the project, VTA could literally run out of funds and would not be able to produce matching funds for the federalized portion. Without checks and balances for the most expensive and unstable portion of the project, the foolish BART project would be another Bay Bridge East Span. Instead of a large fishing pier, it would be disconnected wide gauge track segments suitable for a train musesum displaying trains from India.
Carl Guardino of SVLG is quoted “With this innovative agreement the federal government has shown they know the answer to the 1960 song “Do You Know the Way to San Jose?” – it’s on a BART train, all the way to downtown San Jose, and onto Santa Clara.” May be he is actually talking about these trains without carrying any actual passengers.
I hope the federal government would see this crap right through.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
FTA's new recommendation and San Jose/VTA's response
FTA's recent letter expressed its intention to raise the cost effectiveness score to medium in order to receive federal funds.
This is the response from Gonzales on FTA's letter.
Essentially, FTA is saying that it needs a minimum of C grade to pass the class, and that Gonzales is protesting the shift because VTA is working hard to get a D grade.
If this project were cost effective, the change in minimum score should have no impact, just as a A grade student would pass the class no matter what.
In the past FTA has suggested VTA to phase the extension, a practice that all other transit agencies, including even VTA, for rail projects. Gonzales stubborness against phasing is one of the reasons why VTA is where it is right now in the eyes of FTA.
An article in today's Mercury News covered the story on the differences between FTA and VTA over the cost effectiveness score, and also covered SVLG's effort to get another sales tax passed. It is important to note that because SVLG is a sponsor of the tax, any polls done by that group is biased and is geared toward promoting the tax. SVLG's pollster will likely go over the pro-VTA tax talking points before getting a response whether to support or oppose.
Perhaps these arguments should make voters to think again:
-VTA over estimated BART ridership. For instance, BART extension to SFO opened in 2003 has far fewer riders than estimated, and required SamTrans, the local bus agency, to pay for BART operation.
-If VTA chose to phase the BART project at least to Milpitas and connect to light rail, there's no need for the tax increase for now and the initial phase would at least open 5 to 10 years earlier than if the project were to be built as a whole.
-The Santa Clara county Grand Jury found VTA as unaccountable and needs reform.
-Caltrain's Baby Bullet has already achieved a service and speed that BART cannot match, and it costs pennies to the dollar on construction and operation compared to BART.
More talking points later...
This is the response from Gonzales on FTA's letter.
Essentially, FTA is saying that it needs a minimum of C grade to pass the class, and that Gonzales is protesting the shift because VTA is working hard to get a D grade.
If this project were cost effective, the change in minimum score should have no impact, just as a A grade student would pass the class no matter what.
In the past FTA has suggested VTA to phase the extension, a practice that all other transit agencies, including even VTA, for rail projects. Gonzales stubborness against phasing is one of the reasons why VTA is where it is right now in the eyes of FTA.
An article in today's Mercury News covered the story on the differences between FTA and VTA over the cost effectiveness score, and also covered SVLG's effort to get another sales tax passed. It is important to note that because SVLG is a sponsor of the tax, any polls done by that group is biased and is geared toward promoting the tax. SVLG's pollster will likely go over the pro-VTA tax talking points before getting a response whether to support or oppose.
Perhaps these arguments should make voters to think again:
-VTA over estimated BART ridership. For instance, BART extension to SFO opened in 2003 has far fewer riders than estimated, and required SamTrans, the local bus agency, to pay for BART operation.
-If VTA chose to phase the BART project at least to Milpitas and connect to light rail, there's no need for the tax increase for now and the initial phase would at least open 5 to 10 years earlier than if the project were to be built as a whole.
-The Santa Clara county Grand Jury found VTA as unaccountable and needs reform.
-Caltrain's Baby Bullet has already achieved a service and speed that BART cannot match, and it costs pennies to the dollar on construction and operation compared to BART.
More talking points later...
Sunday, March 27, 2005
VTA's new buses and more
Appeared on the March 30 agenda is a recommendation to approve the purchase of smaller buses. VTA plans to initially purchase 5 28-foot buses through the state's contract.
Also on the agenda is a resolution to oppose the closure of College Park Caltrain station, as well as a decision on the San Jose Grand Prix. The map of the new race course is included in the packet.
The two last minute resolutions on the College Park and the Grand Prix were submitted in the same "SJ Council/VTA board members' memo to the board" manner, essentially locking in five votes on the board.
Also on the agenda is a resolution to oppose the closure of College Park Caltrain station, as well as a decision on the San Jose Grand Prix. The map of the new race course is included in the packet.
The two last minute resolutions on the College Park and the Grand Prix were submitted in the same "SJ Council/VTA board members' memo to the board" manner, essentially locking in five votes on the board.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...
Palo Alto's City Council voted to oppose the VTA's proposed sales tax increase. It is good that Palo Alto is seriously considering the impact of the proposed sales tax increase and the benefits they would, or would not be getting.
Five years ago the same council supported the original Measure A. Sandy Eakins, a member of the PA's City Council at that time, sold herself to the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and was a strong advocate for the sale tax plan. During a VTA special board meeting on August 9, 2000, when VTA was about the place Measure A sales tax on the ballot, Eakins moved to amend the language of Measure A to include funding to study a BART extension from Santa Clara (where the original proposal ends) to Palo Alto. She did so after hearing a suggestion from her colleague at work!
Why is Palo Alto getting screwed in the 2000 Measure A? It is because of poor representation at the time when the plan was drafted. Instead of evaluating the project list seriously and negotiating a plan that ensures regional equity. Its representive choose to accept a fantasy idea from her colleague! It was a good thing that the voters kicked her out of the council in 2001.
VTA thought that they could go back to the council with the same lame plan and hope that some confused members would get fooled again, but not this time.
Five years ago the same council supported the original Measure A. Sandy Eakins, a member of the PA's City Council at that time, sold herself to the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and was a strong advocate for the sale tax plan. During a VTA special board meeting on August 9, 2000, when VTA was about the place Measure A sales tax on the ballot, Eakins moved to amend the language of Measure A to include funding to study a BART extension from Santa Clara (where the original proposal ends) to Palo Alto. She did so after hearing a suggestion from her colleague at work!
Why is Palo Alto getting screwed in the 2000 Measure A? It is because of poor representation at the time when the plan was drafted. Instead of evaluating the project list seriously and negotiating a plan that ensures regional equity. Its representive choose to accept a fantasy idea from her colleague! It was a good thing that the voters kicked her out of the council in 2001.
VTA thought that they could go back to the council with the same lame plan and hope that some confused members would get fooled again, but not this time.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
VTA to restart its restructuring committee
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005
Time: 4:00 PM
Location: County Government Center 10th Floor Conference Room 70 West Hedding Street San Jose
Time: 4:00 PM
Location: County Government Center 10th Floor Conference Room 70 West Hedding Street San Jose
Monday, March 14, 2005
Gilroy Caltrain service spared for now
Despite the current budget crisis Caltrain is facing, Caltrain plans to keep the Gilroy service pretty much as it is for now.
Caltrain Joint Powers Board held a budget workshop earlier today, and presented revenue increasing and cost cutting measures. Instead of massive service cuts, as VTA has done to its service over the last few years, Caltrain is suggesting adding more popular Baby Bullet service, as well as a fare increase.
During the budget presentation, the staff argued to keep the Gilroy service, despite its low ridership and excess train capacity, because of the high level of fares collected. The JPB staff also argued and that cutting the service would result in relatively small savings. However it appears that the JPB staff included the total fare paid by Gilroy riders (beyond the Gilroy-South San Jose zones) in its calculation of revenue generated by the Gilroy service.
Let's see how serious VTA is regarding the Gilroy service and whether it is going to do anything to improve the ridership on that line.
Caltrain Joint Powers Board held a budget workshop earlier today, and presented revenue increasing and cost cutting measures. Instead of massive service cuts, as VTA has done to its service over the last few years, Caltrain is suggesting adding more popular Baby Bullet service, as well as a fare increase.
During the budget presentation, the staff argued to keep the Gilroy service, despite its low ridership and excess train capacity, because of the high level of fares collected. The JPB staff also argued and that cutting the service would result in relatively small savings. However it appears that the JPB staff included the total fare paid by Gilroy riders (beyond the Gilroy-South San Jose zones) in its calculation of revenue generated by the Gilroy service.
Let's see how serious VTA is regarding the Gilroy service and whether it is going to do anything to improve the ridership on that line.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
VTA partly at fault for Caltrain's fiscal emergency
This week, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board will meet and vote whether to declare fiscal emergency. If the board approves as expected, the Caltrain staff will propose train cuts and fare hikes to close the budget gap.
Transit agencies in the three counties that contribute operating funds to Caltrain (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara have their contribution frozen for the last few years. It is hard to demand an increase in contribution in light of the current economic climate, esepcially in San Francisco where Muni is facing a $50 million plus budget gap. It is time to look at the system where the greatest savings can be achieve with the fewest riders impacted.
One of the area where the ridership and revenue continues to be sagging is the Gilroy-San Jose segment. Due to the VTA sponsored freeway widening, along with the dot-come bust, the ridership declined. Back in 2000, these trains used to be nearly full.
Falling ridership means falling revenue for Caltrain, which partly contributed to the current budget gap of about $11 million.
While that portion is solely funded by VTA, it would be a wise for VTA to reduce service on that segment and shift funds to protect the service and the ridership between Palo Alto and San Jose. Meanwhile the Gilroy-San Jose corridor could be serviced by express buses using the new VTA sponsored lanes on the freeway.
Transit agencies in the three counties that contribute operating funds to Caltrain (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara have their contribution frozen for the last few years. It is hard to demand an increase in contribution in light of the current economic climate, esepcially in San Francisco where Muni is facing a $50 million plus budget gap. It is time to look at the system where the greatest savings can be achieve with the fewest riders impacted.
One of the area where the ridership and revenue continues to be sagging is the Gilroy-San Jose segment. Due to the VTA sponsored freeway widening, along with the dot-come bust, the ridership declined. Back in 2000, these trains used to be nearly full.
Falling ridership means falling revenue for Caltrain, which partly contributed to the current budget gap of about $11 million.
While that portion is solely funded by VTA, it would be a wise for VTA to reduce service on that segment and shift funds to protect the service and the ridership between Palo Alto and San Jose. Meanwhile the Gilroy-San Jose corridor could be serviced by express buses using the new VTA sponsored lanes on the freeway.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
More tax for more of the same
VTA is trying hard to sell resell the 2000 Measure A.
An honest agency would at least try hard to deliver as much as the agency can with what it has, before asking the voters for more taxes. VTA does things the other way: ask voters to put pay twice as much to VTA in sales taxes for the same projects. And the worse part is that VTA has yet to collect one cent from the 2000 Measure A!
An honest agency would at least try hard to deliver as much as the agency can with what it has, before asking the voters for more taxes. VTA does things the other way: ask voters to put pay twice as much to VTA in sales taxes for the same projects. And the worse part is that VTA has yet to collect one cent from the 2000 Measure A!
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
VTA's so-call "investment program"
Late last week, VTA released on its web site a document called Long Term Transit Capital Investment Program to justify putting a new VTA 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot. It is basically a recap of the projects listed in the 2000 Measure A. After four years, could VTA have reevaluated its projects based on merit in light on recent economic condition? Of course not.
Besides of what VTA considers to be a mandate, such as the San Jose deep tunneling project, VTA also included $1.3 million to study "new rail corridors" this year, and almost $3 billion to construct "at least two" of these new corridors:
• Sunnyvale/Cupertino;
• East Valley Extension to Guadalupe LRT;
• Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley and potential extension south to Morgan Hill;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard;
• West San Jose/Santa Clara;
• North County/Palo Alto;
• Vasona LRT to Vasona Junction.
I doubt any of those on the list has any merit. The most ridiculous corridors to be included are Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley and the North County/Palo Alto. These corridors are already served by Caltrain in which VTA is not interested to support. Also, if these light rail projects were built, the travel time from Palo Alto and from Coyote Valley to Downtown San Jose would likely take over an hour.
Although as usual planning for rail is a long process and that eventually there may not be any funding available to do whatever VTA wants, but studying new corridors now clearly demostrates where VTA's priorities are.
Besides of what VTA considers to be a mandate, such as the San Jose deep tunneling project, VTA also included $1.3 million to study "new rail corridors" this year, and almost $3 billion to construct "at least two" of these new corridors:
• Sunnyvale/Cupertino;
• East Valley Extension to Guadalupe LRT;
• Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley and potential extension south to Morgan Hill;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard;
• West San Jose/Santa Clara;
• North County/Palo Alto;
• Vasona LRT to Vasona Junction.
I doubt any of those on the list has any merit. The most ridiculous corridors to be included are Santa Teresa/Coyote Valley and the North County/Palo Alto. These corridors are already served by Caltrain in which VTA is not interested to support. Also, if these light rail projects were built, the travel time from Palo Alto and from Coyote Valley to Downtown San Jose would likely take over an hour.
Although as usual planning for rail is a long process and that eventually there may not be any funding available to do whatever VTA wants, but studying new corridors now clearly demostrates where VTA's priorities are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
