VTA did not hide its intention of having a 1/8-cent sales tax increment all along. Finally VTA now has a sponsor in Sacramento to help make its wish a reality. State Senator Elaine Alquist just introduced a new bill (SB 264) that would authorize VTA to place sales taxes on the ballot in 1/8 cent increments. Currently, VTA is allowed to place sales taxes in quarter cent increments.
The bill would only give the authority to VTA only and not to other governmental agencies, and the bill would also keep the 2/3 voter requirement for special taxes, something that VTA prefers to be reduced as well.
VTA's contention is that it needs more flexibility to determine the tax rate for additional revenues, without suggesting a preferred tax rate or a timetable. This legislation would give VTA two new tax options (1/8 cent and 3/8 cent) in addition to two others that already exist (quarter cent and half cent).
As it stands, VTA can barely justify a quarter-cent sales tax increase to support the BART extension and other 2000 Measure A projects. A half-cent tax, which would provide sufficient funding for all projects, is something that voters would likely reject, as shown by the defeat of the 2006 Measure A.
If this legislation passes, VTA could place a 1/8 cent tax increase on the ballot. In order to do so, VTA will have to eliminate projects and/or low-ball their figures. A 1/8 cent tax, even if it is fully dedicated to BART, will not provide enough funds to build and operate BART. Existing transit services, along with other non-BART projects, would be negatively impacted by a 1/8 cent increase.
VTA could place a 3/8 cent tax, but this odd-ball figure would probably confuse voters and likely be rejected.
Another possibility is to have two 1/8 cent tax increases to appear on separate ballots. VTA may place a 1/8 cent BART-only tax on one ballot, and then a 1/8 cent tax for other projects on another ballot. However, voters could approve one but not the other.
Obviously VTA would not seek a change in the law if VTA doesn't plan to take advantage of it soon. With one strike against them in 2006 and time running out, the delusionals at VTA would likely go for a 1/8 cent tax increase just for BART in 2008 and screw everything else.
San Mateo County already has a state authorization to place taxes in 1/8 cent increments. However, a 1/8 cent sales tax increase for parks failed to meet the 2/3 voter theshold last November.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
BART and SamTrans are finally getting a divorce
Key highlights from an op-ed written by Sue Lempert, San Mateo County representative on the MTC:
When the extension started losing money, SamTrans was vulnerable.Continued payments to cover the deficit -- $5 million to $10 million a year -- would ultimately destroy the bus system. Hence, divorce and, of course, alimony. Alimony payments to BART will include $30 million of San Mateo County's Measure A transportation tax which voters renewed in 2004. This has already been approved...
In addition, SamTrans is expected to give BART a portion of its State Transit Assistance (STA), which amounts to approximately $800,000 annually and $32 million from its share of Proposition 1B transit funds. BART will take over operation of the system and responsibility for covering all costs. SamTrans will be off the hook for the extension...
The details of the "divorce settlement" is available here. As a part of the agreement between BART, SamTrans, and MTC, BART will receive a total of $54 million from the Prop 1B funds that can be used for the SFO extension as well as the planned extension to Warm Springs, a wasteful and necessary component for VTA to extend BART further south.
There are lots of lessons to be learned when rail extensions were built on phony promises. At the end, transit riders will determine the success of failure of a new rail lines, not the politicians or lobbyists like SVLG and San Jose Downtown Association. They can spend millions on tax campaigns and consultants, yet build a system that too few riders want to spend money to ride everyday.
When the extension started losing money, SamTrans was vulnerable.Continued payments to cover the deficit -- $5 million to $10 million a year -- would ultimately destroy the bus system. Hence, divorce and, of course, alimony. Alimony payments to BART will include $30 million of San Mateo County's Measure A transportation tax which voters renewed in 2004. This has already been approved...
In addition, SamTrans is expected to give BART a portion of its State Transit Assistance (STA), which amounts to approximately $800,000 annually and $32 million from its share of Proposition 1B transit funds. BART will take over operation of the system and responsibility for covering all costs. SamTrans will be off the hook for the extension...
The details of the "divorce settlement" is available here. As a part of the agreement between BART, SamTrans, and MTC, BART will receive a total of $54 million from the Prop 1B funds that can be used for the SFO extension as well as the planned extension to Warm Springs, a wasteful and necessary component for VTA to extend BART further south.
There are lots of lessons to be learned when rail extensions were built on phony promises. At the end, transit riders will determine the success of failure of a new rail lines, not the politicians or lobbyists like SVLG and San Jose Downtown Association. They can spend millions on tax campaigns and consultants, yet build a system that too few riders want to spend money to ride everyday.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Delusional Mercury News and "Stephen Colbert"
In its recent editorial about BART, when the Mercury News states that: "The design is expected to cost $649 million over the next 10 years," it is important to note that this amount of tax money going to engineers and consultants will be more than enough to deliver actual commuter rail or light rail service.
The BART extension was never within reach because the 2000 Measure A was sold false promises.
Another Mercury line: "Once the line is running, nobody will question the wisdom of having built it." is even more hilarious. Look at San Mateo County, the BART extension to SFO, which was supposed to generate an operating surplus for San Mateo County, is now costing over $10 million per year in unplanned operating subsidy. Is Mercury News sure that no one will question when BART costs more than what VTA and SVLG claimed and bus service had to be cut as the result?
The best, however, is from "Stephen Colbert" in the second reponse: "Now, normally when a multibillion 10-year project is proposed, that will dig up streets for years to come, most people would do a cost analysis -- not ME! I FEEL the worthiness of this pet project. And this is a good project (for Bechtel)..."
The BART extension was never within reach because the 2000 Measure A was sold false promises.
Another Mercury line: "Once the line is running, nobody will question the wisdom of having built it." is even more hilarious. Look at San Mateo County, the BART extension to SFO, which was supposed to generate an operating surplus for San Mateo County, is now costing over $10 million per year in unplanned operating subsidy. Is Mercury News sure that no one will question when BART costs more than what VTA and SVLG claimed and bus service had to be cut as the result?
The best, however, is from "Stephen Colbert" in the second reponse: "Now, normally when a multibillion 10-year project is proposed, that will dig up streets for years to come, most people would do a cost analysis -- not ME! I FEEL the worthiness of this pet project. And this is a good project (for Bechtel)..."
Friday, February 02, 2007
More money to consultants at the expense of transit operations
There's nothing except the passage of a new tax that would make Carl Guardino and Scott Knies more happy: $364 million for the BART extension blackhole from the California Transportation Commission. VTA intends to use the funds to continue studies and designs for the BART project.
That money was a part of the Traffic Congestion Relief Plan (TCRP) proposed by then-governor Gray Davis in 2000, in which he promised $750 million to VTA for the BART extension.
In the following years, most of the TCRP funding was frozen because of the state funding crisis. Some projects like the Caltrain Baby Bullet, which was ready for construction, received full funding. This year, after voters approved Prop 1A and 1B, the CTC began to allocate TCRP funding to other projects.
Guardino and Knies would like you to believe it is all good news, while ignoring the obvious flaws of the BART extension, and the need for additional sales taxes to begin construction.
However, transit riders is likely to pay for this. In order balance the state budget and provide debt service for Prop 1B passed last November, Schwarzenegger has proposed to reduce Public Transit Account (PTA) by $1.1 billion this year, and has also threatened to eliminate the gas tax revenue spillover to the PTA in future years. The PTA funding is a revenue source where transit agencies can spend on transit operations. The spillover funding is particularly important as it can be used to soften the impact on transit operating budget in light of rising fuel prices.
Perhaps Schwarzenegger does not intend to cut transit operating funds for BART. Perhaps Guardino and Knies do not intend to receive BART funding at the expense of transit operation, but the reality is that the state is trying to cut transit operating funds while allocating money for more studies on a project that VTA cannot afford to build and operate.
With all of the $364 million will go to consultants, and nothing for construction or transit operation, how much of that $364 million do you think VTA would spend on consultants to administer bids for sheet cakes served at BART extension public meetings?
That money was a part of the Traffic Congestion Relief Plan (TCRP) proposed by then-governor Gray Davis in 2000, in which he promised $750 million to VTA for the BART extension.
In the following years, most of the TCRP funding was frozen because of the state funding crisis. Some projects like the Caltrain Baby Bullet, which was ready for construction, received full funding. This year, after voters approved Prop 1A and 1B, the CTC began to allocate TCRP funding to other projects.
Guardino and Knies would like you to believe it is all good news, while ignoring the obvious flaws of the BART extension, and the need for additional sales taxes to begin construction.
However, transit riders is likely to pay for this. In order balance the state budget and provide debt service for Prop 1B passed last November, Schwarzenegger has proposed to reduce Public Transit Account (PTA) by $1.1 billion this year, and has also threatened to eliminate the gas tax revenue spillover to the PTA in future years. The PTA funding is a revenue source where transit agencies can spend on transit operations. The spillover funding is particularly important as it can be used to soften the impact on transit operating budget in light of rising fuel prices.
Perhaps Schwarzenegger does not intend to cut transit operating funds for BART. Perhaps Guardino and Knies do not intend to receive BART funding at the expense of transit operation, but the reality is that the state is trying to cut transit operating funds while allocating money for more studies on a project that VTA cannot afford to build and operate.
With all of the $364 million will go to consultants, and nothing for construction or transit operation, how much of that $364 million do you think VTA would spend on consultants to administer bids for sheet cakes served at BART extension public meetings?
Friday, January 26, 2007
The boondoggle in SF
The Silicon Valley isn't the only area run by subway delusionals, San Francisco also has its share of delusionals when it comes to the Central Subway project. The project is estimated to cost $1.4 billion for 1.7 mile of new rail. In some ways it makes the San Jose BART project look like a bargain.
The Central Subway was supposed to be a new spine connecting light rail lines from Chinatown, the Richmond, and the Bay View districts, similar to the existing Market Street Subway. Although a good concept, the project as currently planned would fail to meet much of its transportation objectives with short platforms and inconvenient connection to other transit lines on Market Street. Nonetheless, the project has its share of supporters. They claim, not so much that this project actually improve transportation in a cost effective manner, but in some magical way the project would benefit local businesses and residents and it has the support from the community.
What this means is that the Central Subway, like the BART project, has been hijacked by non-transit advocates to waste valuable transit funds for soft non-transportation benefits.
Despite its problems, the Central Subway can still receive federal funding, especially considering that Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, represents the district where the project lies.
The moment of truth for the Central Subway would likely depend on the success or failure of the T-Third Street line, which opened for weekend service on January 13 until April, when full weekday service commences. The T line, primarily a surface light rail line, has experienced long delays and huge cost overruns. The T line has the support from the African American community in the Bay View and its leaders believe that the T line would be the key to revitalize the neighborhood. However, riders have reported that the T line is slower than the parallel bus service, despite traffic signal priority and exclusive right-of-way available most of the corridor.
The Central Subway was supposed to be a new spine connecting light rail lines from Chinatown, the Richmond, and the Bay View districts, similar to the existing Market Street Subway. Although a good concept, the project as currently planned would fail to meet much of its transportation objectives with short platforms and inconvenient connection to other transit lines on Market Street. Nonetheless, the project has its share of supporters. They claim, not so much that this project actually improve transportation in a cost effective manner, but in some magical way the project would benefit local businesses and residents and it has the support from the community.
What this means is that the Central Subway, like the BART project, has been hijacked by non-transit advocates to waste valuable transit funds for soft non-transportation benefits.
Despite its problems, the Central Subway can still receive federal funding, especially considering that Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, represents the district where the project lies.
The moment of truth for the Central Subway would likely depend on the success or failure of the T-Third Street line, which opened for weekend service on January 13 until April, when full weekday service commences. The T line, primarily a surface light rail line, has experienced long delays and huge cost overruns. The T line has the support from the African American community in the Bay View and its leaders believe that the T line would be the key to revitalize the neighborhood. However, riders have reported that the T line is slower than the parallel bus service, despite traffic signal priority and exclusive right-of-way available most of the corridor.
Friday, January 05, 2007
VTA 2007 agenda in Sacramento
Regarding new sales taxes:
- Support efforts to place a constitutional amendment before the voters of California to allow them to decide whether the two-thirds voting requirement for local transportation sales tax measures should be lowered. (page 5)
- Amending VTA's enabling statutes to allow VTA to impose local transportation sales taxes in one-eigth-cent increments verses quarter-cent increments. (page 11)
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Ron Gonzales true legacy: FUBAR, harming effective transit for decades to come
The Mercury News thinks BART could've been a legacy for Ron Gonzales, who later turned out to be a crook due to the garbage deal, but how can you trust a news source that consistently supports special interests like the SVLG and SBLC that prefer more public funds going to their members' coffers and believes that "a condition for greatness is to have a great transportation system. And here that means BART," as quoted by the delusional Steve Glickman of Los Gatos.
The true legacy is that he FUBAR transit in the South Bay and the rail connection to the East Bay was delayed for decades to come. Back in 1999 when Gozales made his first State of the City speech, he said: "Before I leave office, BART will be connected to San Jose." It is a totally achievable goal, if the VTA commuter rail connection from San Jose to Union City has gone foward as planned. However, some in the press and the political circle interpreted his statement to mean a full BART extension. Gonzales, once supported the BART extension in the past, went along with this interpretation.
In March 2000, riding high the dot-com boom, Guardino and Gonzales convinced Governor Gray Davis to use the state surplus and allocate $35 million for the commuter rail/BART rail right of way, and later an additional $725 million to the BART extension. At the same the time, other transportation projects were also funded using the state surplus, including the Caltrain Baby Bullet.
In June 2000, after some conceptual studies and funding promise from the state, Gonzales and Guardino proposed a new sales tax extension, 6 years ahead before the expiration of the then-current 1996 Measure A/B tax. Gonzales and Guardino asked the County Board of Supervisor to place the tax on the November ballot as a general tax and an advisory measure similar to the 1996 tax. After a month long community-based campaign that questioned BART and the lack of benefits, Superviors Blanca Alavarado and Jim Beall defeated to place the general tax on the November ballot in August 2000.
Meanwhile, VTA was proceeding with plans for the commuter rail connection. Some objections were raised in Fremont regarding the rail alignment north of Mission Boulevard. Then mayor of Fremont Gus Morrison objected the rail project in its entireity because it would overlap the planned Warm Springs BART extension between Warms Springs and Union City. Nonetheless, the VTA board approved the purchase of locomotives and rail cars for that service.
The rejection of the tax proposal by the Board of Supervisors was clearly a slap in the face for Ron Gonzales. Next day, the VTA board in which Gonzales also sat on voted to place a special tax on the ballot, which required a 2/3 voter approval. The VTA tax measure was poorly drafted due to the urgency of submitting the measure to the November ballot before the deadline and the mis-guided board discussion that centered on what other projects would be funded besides the full BART extension.
After placing the sales tax on the ballot for BART, it appeared to VTA that a commuter rail connection is a liability rather than an asset. Using the excuse of "public opposition" mainly from Fremont, VTA effectively discontinued the commuter rail program in October and adopted a series of express bus improvements which was never carried out one excuse after another.
Despite the excitement for BART by the VTA board, the VTA general manager Pete Cipolla had warned the board that a new tax may be needed to support all the Measure A programs.
Due to the notion of "free BART" (the campaign argument in support of the Measure clearly stated: NO TAX INCREASE), great economy, and poor campaigning conducted by the opposition, Measure A was approved by 70%. Gonzales got his mandate, but as we all know today, transit has not improved and promises were not kept. The 2000 mandate is now a barrier for superior alternatives such as Caltrain Metro East from implementation.
Gonzales could have a true legacy of establishing a rail transit connection to the East Bay with BART. He got greedy in 2000 with BART and now he is getting neither.
The true legacy is that he FUBAR transit in the South Bay and the rail connection to the East Bay was delayed for decades to come. Back in 1999 when Gozales made his first State of the City speech, he said: "Before I leave office, BART will be connected to San Jose." It is a totally achievable goal, if the VTA commuter rail connection from San Jose to Union City has gone foward as planned. However, some in the press and the political circle interpreted his statement to mean a full BART extension. Gonzales, once supported the BART extension in the past, went along with this interpretation.
In March 2000, riding high the dot-com boom, Guardino and Gonzales convinced Governor Gray Davis to use the state surplus and allocate $35 million for the commuter rail/BART rail right of way, and later an additional $725 million to the BART extension. At the same the time, other transportation projects were also funded using the state surplus, including the Caltrain Baby Bullet.
In June 2000, after some conceptual studies and funding promise from the state, Gonzales and Guardino proposed a new sales tax extension, 6 years ahead before the expiration of the then-current 1996 Measure A/B tax. Gonzales and Guardino asked the County Board of Supervisor to place the tax on the November ballot as a general tax and an advisory measure similar to the 1996 tax. After a month long community-based campaign that questioned BART and the lack of benefits, Superviors Blanca Alavarado and Jim Beall defeated to place the general tax on the November ballot in August 2000.
Meanwhile, VTA was proceeding with plans for the commuter rail connection. Some objections were raised in Fremont regarding the rail alignment north of Mission Boulevard. Then mayor of Fremont Gus Morrison objected the rail project in its entireity because it would overlap the planned Warm Springs BART extension between Warms Springs and Union City. Nonetheless, the VTA board approved the purchase of locomotives and rail cars for that service.
The rejection of the tax proposal by the Board of Supervisors was clearly a slap in the face for Ron Gonzales. Next day, the VTA board in which Gonzales also sat on voted to place a special tax on the ballot, which required a 2/3 voter approval. The VTA tax measure was poorly drafted due to the urgency of submitting the measure to the November ballot before the deadline and the mis-guided board discussion that centered on what other projects would be funded besides the full BART extension.
After placing the sales tax on the ballot for BART, it appeared to VTA that a commuter rail connection is a liability rather than an asset. Using the excuse of "public opposition" mainly from Fremont, VTA effectively discontinued the commuter rail program in October and adopted a series of express bus improvements which was never carried out one excuse after another.
Despite the excitement for BART by the VTA board, the VTA general manager Pete Cipolla had warned the board that a new tax may be needed to support all the Measure A programs.
Due to the notion of "free BART" (the campaign argument in support of the Measure clearly stated: NO TAX INCREASE), great economy, and poor campaigning conducted by the opposition, Measure A was approved by 70%. Gonzales got his mandate, but as we all know today, transit has not improved and promises were not kept. The 2000 mandate is now a barrier for superior alternatives such as Caltrain Metro East from implementation.
Gonzales could have a true legacy of establishing a rail transit connection to the East Bay with BART. He got greedy in 2000 with BART and now he is getting neither.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The delusional and the chickened rule VTA
From today's BayRail Alliance Announcement:
1) VTA Board approves BART preliminary engineering contracts
After a somber and extended discussion, in which several of the VTA board members expressed concerns about the BART project and suggested that VTA study alternatives, the board voted 9-2 to approve the preliminary engineering contracts. Councilmember Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss voted No.
We're disappointed with this outcome. The overwhelming majority of the public testimony they received was against spending more on BART. Margaret Okuzumi was interviewed by both KRON 4 and NBC 11. Please look for her appearance on the 6 o'clock news tonight. She was also interviewed (in English) by Sing Tao Chinese Radio.
Supervisor Kniss repeatedly mentioned the cost overruns of Boston's "Big Dig" -- a project that was originally priced at $4 B and is now priced at $16 Billion -- and expressed concern over the construction risks of tunneling. "I say we're on the wrong track with these precious transit dollars," said Kniss. Among other concerns, she noted BART doesn't yet connect to the county line.
This fight isn't over -- VTA will be putting a measure on the ballot in 2008 to obtain more taxes for the BART project. If that tax is defeated, then the VTA board will be forced to consider superior rail alternatives that don't require a new tax.
Meanwhile, please thank Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss for their No vote.
The rest who support these contracts fall under two categories: delusional and chickened. Members like Cindy Chavez and Forrest Williams clearly fall under the delusional category, for being beholden to the South Bay Labor Council and the construction unions. Members like Don Gage and Breene Kerr fall under the chickened category. They knew that the BART extension as planned is infeasible and will hurt their constitutents, but they were too chickened to vote no because they were too chickened to be the ones that kill the BART extension. They would prefer someone else to do this tough job.
The 2008 Measure A campaign has begun.
1) VTA Board approves BART preliminary engineering contracts
After a somber and extended discussion, in which several of the VTA board members expressed concerns about the BART project and suggested that VTA study alternatives, the board voted 9-2 to approve the preliminary engineering contracts. Councilmember Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss voted No.
We're disappointed with this outcome. The overwhelming majority of the public testimony they received was against spending more on BART. Margaret Okuzumi was interviewed by both KRON 4 and NBC 11. Please look for her appearance on the 6 o'clock news tonight. She was also interviewed (in English) by Sing Tao Chinese Radio.
Supervisor Kniss repeatedly mentioned the cost overruns of Boston's "Big Dig" -- a project that was originally priced at $4 B and is now priced at $16 Billion -- and expressed concern over the construction risks of tunneling. "I say we're on the wrong track with these precious transit dollars," said Kniss. Among other concerns, she noted BART doesn't yet connect to the county line.
This fight isn't over -- VTA will be putting a measure on the ballot in 2008 to obtain more taxes for the BART project. If that tax is defeated, then the VTA board will be forced to consider superior rail alternatives that don't require a new tax.
Meanwhile, please thank Greg Perry and Supervisor Liz Kniss for their No vote.
The rest who support these contracts fall under two categories: delusional and chickened. Members like Cindy Chavez and Forrest Williams clearly fall under the delusional category, for being beholden to the South Bay Labor Council and the construction unions. Members like Don Gage and Breene Kerr fall under the chickened category. They knew that the BART extension as planned is infeasible and will hurt their constitutents, but they were too chickened to vote no because they were too chickened to be the ones that kill the BART extension. They would prefer someone else to do this tough job.
The 2008 Measure A campaign has begun.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
To Mr. Burns: Please stop destroying transit
In a Mercury News article today, VTA General Manager Michael Burns tries to justify the BART design contracts despite the lack of operating funds:
"We can make the argument that we can build the system,'' Burns said, "but we clearly do not have the money to operate the system. We need to come to a decision point on this over the next 18 months or two years.''
To Mr. Burns: Please stop using coded words that people like Carl Guardino can understand. Fortunately, BayRail Alliance executive director Margaret Okuzumi translate the phase into layperson's term:
Any VTA board member who votes for this is essentially saying they want VTA to put another tax on the ballot in 2008, and is presuming that such a ballot measure will be successful.
Also to Mr. Burns: Bad transit hurts all transit. The BART extension was ill-conceived and underfunded since 2000. Last June, voters clearly rejected to pay more taxes into this transit black-hole. This "stay the course" BART policy will only further erode voter confidence on VTA and all mass transit. Why would voters support transit in the future when the signature VTA project will bankrupt VTA, destroy bus service, and fail to meet ridership projection?
"We can make the argument that we can build the system,'' Burns said, "but we clearly do not have the money to operate the system. We need to come to a decision point on this over the next 18 months or two years.''
To Mr. Burns: Please stop using coded words that people like Carl Guardino can understand. Fortunately, BayRail Alliance executive director Margaret Okuzumi translate the phase into layperson's term:
Any VTA board member who votes for this is essentially saying they want VTA to put another tax on the ballot in 2008, and is presuming that such a ballot measure will be successful.
Also to Mr. Burns: Bad transit hurts all transit. The BART extension was ill-conceived and underfunded since 2000. Last June, voters clearly rejected to pay more taxes into this transit black-hole. This "stay the course" BART policy will only further erode voter confidence on VTA and all mass transit. Why would voters support transit in the future when the signature VTA project will bankrupt VTA, destroy bus service, and fail to meet ridership projection?
Friday, December 08, 2006
A big Christmas gift for VTA consultants?
For VTA, the quickest way to waste public funds is to spend more money on consultants. On December 14 (9:00am), the VTA board will decide whether to approve a series of contract amendments on the engineering and design work for the BART extension worth over $100 million in total.
Earlier last month, the Transit Planning and Operations committee submitted these items to the board without issuing a recommendation.
VTA's problem is that it cannot afford to build the BART extension with the funds it has. VTA's plan requires a new sales tax, which voters clearly rejected last June. If these contracts were approved without additional taxes to fund construction, the end-product would be just engineering and design materials, unable to carry any passengers anywhere.
Instead, VTA should start a fresh review on all VTA projects, without the negative and idiotic influence from Ron Gonzales, and immediately begin real improvements like a direct express bus line between Fremont and downtown San Jose, which was approved six years ago for not building a commuter rail connection to BART.
If the VTA board doesn't want to place a new tax on the ballot and let the voters decide, the VTA board should not approve these contracts and extort money from taxpayers.
Earlier last month, the Transit Planning and Operations committee submitted these items to the board without issuing a recommendation.
VTA's problem is that it cannot afford to build the BART extension with the funds it has. VTA's plan requires a new sales tax, which voters clearly rejected last June. If these contracts were approved without additional taxes to fund construction, the end-product would be just engineering and design materials, unable to carry any passengers anywhere.
Instead, VTA should start a fresh review on all VTA projects, without the negative and idiotic influence from Ron Gonzales, and immediately begin real improvements like a direct express bus line between Fremont and downtown San Jose, which was approved six years ago for not building a commuter rail connection to BART.
If the VTA board doesn't want to place a new tax on the ballot and let the voters decide, the VTA board should not approve these contracts and extort money from taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
