Assessment of VTA: too political, unstable finance

Last year, VTA hired a consultant to review VTA's organization model and its finances. The consultant's assessment of VTA, which is presented to the VTA Board today, is consistent with the review by the County Civil Grand Jury in 2004: VTA is too political, and VTA's finances is uncertain and unstable. The report high-lighted the unwillingness of the VTA Board to create a budget-balanced 2000 Measure A expenditure plan, and the report also criticized VTA for underestimating its operating and maintenance funding needs as the warranties on light rail infrastucture expire.

According to a news article by Gary Richards, the VTA's Chief Financial Officer, Roger Contreras, has resigned. This is the second CFO resigned after the passage of the 2000 Measure A. In 2004, CFO Scott Buhrer resigned (whose wife was a VTA planner working on the BART extension, and which she resigned also) in light of VTA's financial problems (still exist today) that once threatened a 21% transit cut in 2003.

The consultants made nine top recommendations, with a number of sub-recommendations in every top recommendation. These recommendations include:

• -Institute an audit committee
• -Implement an auditor general function
• -Make the general manager an ex-officio member of the VTA Board
• -Reduce the number of advisory committees
• -Balance the VTA's 30 year revenue and expenditure plan
• -Strengthen financial reportings
• -Upgrade SAP system

Hotel 22

These are the pictures shot during a late night trip on the 22 from Downtown San Jose to Palo Alto. VTA was using regular length buses rather than articulated buses, which were used during the day. The phase "Hotel 22" has been used to label the overnight trips on that line, since it is the only VTA line that operates overnight and is used by the homeless for the warmth and relative comfort from the streets.



On Santa Clara & 1st Street, the driver (upper center of the photo) pulled a passenger off (center of the photo) the front seats to make room for a wheelchair passenger. The person being pulled was sleeping and almost fell onto the floor.



The sleeping passenger got up and the driver was securing the wheelchair passenger. Notice that there's a hooded passenger (center of the photo) in front of the bus with his face masked. That person stood up at the front of the bus for the most part of the trip chatting with the driver.



That passenger found another seat and fell asleep, and the wheelchair passenger got onto the bus. The bus continued westward. Most of the homeless passengers can be identified by their baggages they carry and the clothes they wear. Many of them wear hats or hooded jackets/shirts to protect their eyes from the lights when they go to sleep. Not everyone onboard is a homeless though.



A passenger on the back of the bus rested his legs on other seats.



Once the bus arrived to Palo Alto. The driver did not kick everyone out. Some of the homeless stayed on the bus sleeping while the bus driver was taking a break.



SamTrans "All Nighter" route 397 was timed to connect with the 22 for onward service to San Francisco, where it will make connections to Muni and AC Transit. SamTrans was using an articulated bus for this trip.



Passengers were waiting for the eastbound 22 toward Eastridge.

It is all about highway construction spending

As the critics have warned about Prop 1B last year, the bond is all about highway pork. If it isn't money to expand highways in rural areas, it is money to widen local freeways or rebuild freeway-to-freeway mega interchanges. Either way, Prop 1b is not a winning proposition for cities who chose not to attract more automobile traffic, like San Francisco, or to everyday transit riders, as the Governor has proposed to reduce funding that assists transit operations.

Appointment of Carl Guardino to the California Transportation Commission, the primary agency that allocates the Prop 1b funds, signals that the Silicon Valley is committed to widen freeways and rebuild mega interchanges for many years to come.

Although Guardino supports the BART extension, it is not something that will overtake highway expansion as a priority or physically substitute any highway project. During the 2006 Measure A campaign last year, the proponents created a false scenario and claimed, "If BART isn’t built, the county would need to build two more lanes in either direction on I-880 to maintain the current level of congestion on that highway. " Even though Measure A failed, VTA, with the support of Guardino, still spends money on BART as if the tax was approved and continues to support widening on I-880. Earlier this week, California Transportation Commission has voted to fund new carpool lanes on I-880 between CA-237 and US-101. That stretch of freeway was widen a few years ago but appearently they think it is not wide enough.

The BART/Freeway widening hypocrisy is more apparent when it comes to ridership and fare revenue projection. VTA and Guardino assumes that the stations along the BART extension would generate the ridership as in downtown San Francisco, even though San Francisco, unlike the South Bay, has not supported freeway expansion within the city or new bridges across the Bay for decades. If the ridership is not realized, then financial troubles will follow, like the BART-SFO extension, creating a burden on taxpayers and existing transit riders.

Having BART simply is not a barrier against highway expansions. A clear example is the 4th bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, which has also received Prop 1b funds. BART operates along the same corridor and provides relatively fast and frequent service. Since the new bore will provide more capacity for the reverse commute direction, it will take ridership and fare revenue from BART without reducing BART operating cost.

South Bay Labor Council and the California Alliance for Jobs, which they represent the construction interests, will be big winners in all these pork.

Santa Clara County foregoes opportunity for leadership at MTC

By a single vote at the Santa Clara Cities Selection Committee, Santa Clara County just lost the opportunity to have one of its own to be the chair of MTC for the next four years. Sunnyvale Councilman Dean Chu was voted in 8-7 over the incumbent John McLemore, a former Santa Clara City Councilman who has been serving as the vice-chair on MTC. Yesterday, MTC selected a representive from Napa County to be the chairperson and another from Alameda County to be the vice-chair.

Besides Dean Chu, all the other MTC representives from Santa Clara County are new. Dave Cortese from San Jose is a delegate from ABAG, replacing a delegate from Sonoma County due to obscure rules about committee assignments. Ken Yeager, a newly elected Supervisor, has replaced Jim Beall, which has moved up to Sacramento as an Assemblyman. Because all of them are new, none of them are qualified to become the chair nor vice chair.

This is Margaret Okuzumi's assessment of Dean Chu's selection:

While Dean Chu is a reasonable choice if he had more than 24 hours in day, he is currently stretched so thin that I don't think he'll be able to devote sufficient time to his MTC duties. Chu was recently selected to serve on a transportation committee for the National League of Cities, in addition to serving on the Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee.

The other problem with Dean Chu is his obsession with the BART project, which won't go anywhere in Sunnyvale, a city that he was elected to represent. Or, may be because of his obsession, was the reason that he got chosen over John McLemore, which in addition to his MTC duties, has also served on the Caltrain Joint Powers Board and has been a strong supporter for Caltrain projects such as electrification.

1/8 cent sales tax for VTA?

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.

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.

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)..."

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?

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.

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)