The highly paid BART delusionals at VTA are asking the community to pick which side of Santa Clara Street the subway would go under at Coyote Creek. To avoid impacting the Santa Clara Street bridge structure, the VTA staff is recommending the tunnel to travel off the street right-of-way and under the neighborhoods.
Those who live north of Santa Clara Street would prefer the tunnel to go south of the street, and those from the south would prefer it to go north. There are legitimate concerns about noise and vibrations generated from the tunnels during and after construction. As we know, for an electric train system, BART is not a quiet, both inside and outside the train.
The city staff perfers the southern alignment, because the northern alignment could impact the redevelopment potential of the former San Jose Medical Center site by limiting the height of future buildings there. However, the redevelopment potential is questionable since no BART station is planned within half a mile from the site and a light rail extension is no longer a viable option on Santa Clara Street.
Just like the Berryessa Flea Market issue, the communities will be the winner if the BART extension is dead and superior options like Caltrain Metro East were pursued instead. Why vote to increase your tax to put noisy tunnels under your house? Vote No on Measure A next year.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
SJ Mercury releases VTA salary information
After a recent state supreme court ruling, SJ Mercury was able to obtain salary information of VTA employees along with their names and released it to the public on its web site.
The highest paid employee was General Manager Michael Burns earning just over $290k during last fiscal year. Almost all executives and top managers earn between $100k and $200k.
One of the most interesting details revealed is that there were 22 bus drivers earning over $100k during the last fiscal year. Even the highest paid light rail operator earned less than $90k. Also, four transit mechanics earned more than $100k.
Under the current contract with the ATU, the top hourly wage for a regular bus operator is $27.61, which translates to a yearly income of $57,428, assuming a 40 hour work week for the entire year. These drivers were collecting a very generous overtime pay.
In comparison, in the City of San Jose, a majority of employees earning over $100k are police officers and fire fighters, which is primarily due to employee overtime. Aides to council members advising on VTA and other issues earn between $50k and $80k.
The highest paid employee was General Manager Michael Burns earning just over $290k during last fiscal year. Almost all executives and top managers earn between $100k and $200k.
One of the most interesting details revealed is that there were 22 bus drivers earning over $100k during the last fiscal year. Even the highest paid light rail operator earned less than $90k. Also, four transit mechanics earned more than $100k.
Under the current contract with the ATU, the top hourly wage for a regular bus operator is $27.61, which translates to a yearly income of $57,428, assuming a 40 hour work week for the entire year. These drivers were collecting a very generous overtime pay.
In comparison, in the City of San Jose, a majority of employees earning over $100k are police officers and fire fighters, which is primarily due to employee overtime. Aides to council members advising on VTA and other issues earn between $50k and $80k.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Biased reporting and more
An article about the BART project appeared on this week's Metro. The writer, Erin Sherbert, originally worked for newspapers in the East Bay and the Central Valley, attempted to cover both sides of the story. However she more or less promoted VTA administration's lies about the project being 80% funded. She also proclaimed: "Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Santa Clara County made was not linking the region to BART from the start," and without mentioning local transit riders group such as VTA Riders' Union and BayRail Alliance that are against the BART extension.
Some reporters like her assumed that BART could have built in the South Bay in the 60s, but history shows otherwise. Two years ago, BayRail Alliance published an article in its newsletter (no longer online) challenging such myth:
It’s a common myth in the Bay Area that if Santa Clara County voters had been given the opportunity in 1962 to vote on the original BART system, it would have been built to serve the South Bay and San Jose. Our own research indicates that the opposite is true. Had Santa Clara
County insisted on joining the original system, perhaps it never would have been built at all.
Early BART studies suggested that the primary role of the system was to serve the greater San Francisco area. The first phase included lines radiating from San Francisco into the East Bay via an underwater trans-bay tube, down the Peninsula through Daly City to Palo Alto, and across the Golden Gate to the North Bay.
The line to San Jose was not considered to be a part of the initial phase, but as phase two (see original map, next page). Consideration was given to building a line to San Jose as a part of the phase one, but that was rejected at the staff level because its projected population density at the
time would not support its inclusion. In the late fifties, when the state legislature was forming the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors unanimously requested to be excluded. Knowing that San Jose was not part of phase one, Santa Clara County decided not to pay taxes that would subsidize BART construction in other counties, including Marin.
In short, BART planners were not really interested in Santa Clara County at that time. And Santa Clara County made a decision to opt out based on realistic expectations. Back then, the technical specification for the BART system has yet to be determined and cost overruns were not expected. After formation of the BART district, San Mateo and Marin Counties dropped out for similar and other reasons.
Population density was the political justification for BART’s construction. In 1962, when the original bond issue (which also included the construction of MUNI's Metro system) was placed on the ballot, the state legislature put in a special approval requirement of 60% of voters of the three counties combined. The voters barely approved BART by 61.2%. A county breakdown showed overwhelming support from urban San Francisco with 66.9%, marginal support from Alameda County at 60%, and insufficient support by Contra Costa County at 54.5%. San Francisco voters carried the election and allowed the construction of BART. Had voters in other Bay Area counties, including Santa Clara County, voted on the BART bond, the combined total would likely have been less than 60%, and BART would not have been approved. It is reasonable to conclude that if Santa Clara County had been included in the BART district, the bond issue would have failed...
The most illustrative is the map included in the original BART report as shown below:
By the way, Livermore and Antioch aren't the only cities that are paying BART taxes and not getting BART services. The Richmond District in San Francisco, which is heavily transit dependent and was to be served by BART under the original plan, also paid taxes to BART for decades but not getting any services.
End of San Jose Grand Prix
The San Jose Grand Prix organizers called it quit after three annual races in downtown San Jose, due to possible downtown construction that would impact the race course as well as the end of subsidies from the city in forms of cash and free services.
While the San Jose Grand Prix is a money maker for hotels and downtown parking lots, it is not a money maker for the city and other small businesses. For VTA riders, the Grand Prix means interrupted light rail service at the center of the system and other bus reroutes.
Loss of direct Caltrain connection to SFO
As BART plans to realign service along the SFO extension for January, BART thinks the double transfer from Caltrain to SFO isn't so bad. Under the new schedule, the ride from Millbrae to SFO via a transfer at San Bruno would be 9 minutes, and the return trip would take 10 to 11 minutes. BART is planning a 1 minute cross platform transfer at San Bruno. In addition, the first three northbound trips of the day would start from Millbrae directly to SFO and the last three southbound trips of the day would continue from SFO to Millbrae, as SFO trains would be stored at the Millbrae tail tracks overnight.
Despite BART's effort to make the double transfer more palatable, the BART SFO extension has been and will forever be a disappointment for Caltrain riders from the South Bay heading to SFO. Under the proposal, a one or two minute delay for the first train would mean an overall 15 to 20 minute delay at the San Bruno station. The first and last three direct trains are useless as BART begins service at 4:00am, more than 90 minutes before the first Caltrain arrival and likely to end service beyond 12:25am, after the last Caltrain departure. For travelers going out from domestic terminals but don't want the long walk, the current double transfer from Caltrain to BART and then to AirTrain would become a triple transfer.
Some reporters like her assumed that BART could have built in the South Bay in the 60s, but history shows otherwise. Two years ago, BayRail Alliance published an article in its newsletter (no longer online) challenging such myth:
It’s a common myth in the Bay Area that if Santa Clara County voters had been given the opportunity in 1962 to vote on the original BART system, it would have been built to serve the South Bay and San Jose. Our own research indicates that the opposite is true. Had Santa Clara
County insisted on joining the original system, perhaps it never would have been built at all.
Early BART studies suggested that the primary role of the system was to serve the greater San Francisco area. The first phase included lines radiating from San Francisco into the East Bay via an underwater trans-bay tube, down the Peninsula through Daly City to Palo Alto, and across the Golden Gate to the North Bay.
The line to San Jose was not considered to be a part of the initial phase, but as phase two (see original map, next page). Consideration was given to building a line to San Jose as a part of the phase one, but that was rejected at the staff level because its projected population density at the
time would not support its inclusion. In the late fifties, when the state legislature was forming the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors unanimously requested to be excluded. Knowing that San Jose was not part of phase one, Santa Clara County decided not to pay taxes that would subsidize BART construction in other counties, including Marin.
In short, BART planners were not really interested in Santa Clara County at that time. And Santa Clara County made a decision to opt out based on realistic expectations. Back then, the technical specification for the BART system has yet to be determined and cost overruns were not expected. After formation of the BART district, San Mateo and Marin Counties dropped out for similar and other reasons.
Population density was the political justification for BART’s construction. In 1962, when the original bond issue (which also included the construction of MUNI's Metro system) was placed on the ballot, the state legislature put in a special approval requirement of 60% of voters of the three counties combined. The voters barely approved BART by 61.2%. A county breakdown showed overwhelming support from urban San Francisco with 66.9%, marginal support from Alameda County at 60%, and insufficient support by Contra Costa County at 54.5%. San Francisco voters carried the election and allowed the construction of BART. Had voters in other Bay Area counties, including Santa Clara County, voted on the BART bond, the combined total would likely have been less than 60%, and BART would not have been approved. It is reasonable to conclude that if Santa Clara County had been included in the BART district, the bond issue would have failed...
The most illustrative is the map included in the original BART report as shown below:
By the way, Livermore and Antioch aren't the only cities that are paying BART taxes and not getting BART services. The Richmond District in San Francisco, which is heavily transit dependent and was to be served by BART under the original plan, also paid taxes to BART for decades but not getting any services.
End of San Jose Grand Prix
The San Jose Grand Prix organizers called it quit after three annual races in downtown San Jose, due to possible downtown construction that would impact the race course as well as the end of subsidies from the city in forms of cash and free services.
While the San Jose Grand Prix is a money maker for hotels and downtown parking lots, it is not a money maker for the city and other small businesses. For VTA riders, the Grand Prix means interrupted light rail service at the center of the system and other bus reroutes.
Loss of direct Caltrain connection to SFO
As BART plans to realign service along the SFO extension for January, BART thinks the double transfer from Caltrain to SFO isn't so bad. Under the new schedule, the ride from Millbrae to SFO via a transfer at San Bruno would be 9 minutes, and the return trip would take 10 to 11 minutes. BART is planning a 1 minute cross platform transfer at San Bruno. In addition, the first three northbound trips of the day would start from Millbrae directly to SFO and the last three southbound trips of the day would continue from SFO to Millbrae, as SFO trains would be stored at the Millbrae tail tracks overnight.
Despite BART's effort to make the double transfer more palatable, the BART SFO extension has been and will forever be a disappointment for Caltrain riders from the South Bay heading to SFO. Under the proposal, a one or two minute delay for the first train would mean an overall 15 to 20 minute delay at the San Bruno station. The first and last three direct trains are useless as BART begins service at 4:00am, more than 90 minutes before the first Caltrain arrival and likely to end service beyond 12:25am, after the last Caltrain departure. For travelers going out from domestic terminals but don't want the long walk, the current double transfer from Caltrain to BART and then to AirTrain would become a triple transfer.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
VTA approves the COA plan
By unanimous vote, the VTA board approved the implementation of the COA plan in January 2008, while committing to work with Palo Alto to develop a separate service plan by the end of this year.
While the meeting was scheduled at 5:30pm, the board did not discuss the COA until 7:30pm, when board chair Dean Chu decided to skip some items on the agenda to the COA. Prior to the COA, the board spent a significant amount of time debating on whether to change the bylaws of the Policy Advisory Committee. The poorly ordered agenda forced the audience to wait two hours for the opportunity to address the board. Although the General Manager Michael Burns could stay in a local hotel at VTA's expense for the night, others have no choice but to wait for the increasingly infrequent transit service as the night went on.
Overall, more than 20 people spoke. Besides some general comments regarding the COA as a whole, most public comments centered around the service reduction in Palo Alto and the elimination of line 22 in Menlo Park. Both mayors of Palo Alto and Menlo Park were present to express their concerns. Although some board members were sympathetic to these two cities, they felt that the COA would be beneficial overall to the entire system. Before the public comments, some member questioned about access to the Valley Medical Center, given the proposed elimination of route 85. In response, VTA staff said that passengers would have better service by transferring between lines that would run more frequently.
While the meeting was scheduled at 5:30pm, the board did not discuss the COA until 7:30pm, when board chair Dean Chu decided to skip some items on the agenda to the COA. Prior to the COA, the board spent a significant amount of time debating on whether to change the bylaws of the Policy Advisory Committee. The poorly ordered agenda forced the audience to wait two hours for the opportunity to address the board. Although the General Manager Michael Burns could stay in a local hotel at VTA's expense for the night, others have no choice but to wait for the increasingly infrequent transit service as the night went on.
Overall, more than 20 people spoke. Besides some general comments regarding the COA as a whole, most public comments centered around the service reduction in Palo Alto and the elimination of line 22 in Menlo Park. Both mayors of Palo Alto and Menlo Park were present to express their concerns. Although some board members were sympathetic to these two cities, they felt that the COA would be beneficial overall to the entire system. Before the public comments, some member questioned about access to the Valley Medical Center, given the proposed elimination of route 85. In response, VTA staff said that passengers would have better service by transferring between lines that would run more frequently.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
VTA to face state audit and more
The word came earlier from Sacramento that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee has approved the state audit of VTA. The state audit was requested by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, Assemblyman Jim Beall, and Senator Senator Elaine Alquist, as a deal for Lieber to allow the 1/8 cent VTA sales tax bill (SB264) to go through the Assembly.
Although VTA officially has no position on the audit, it is obvious that VTA would prefer not to be audited. Before the committee meeting, Senator Alberto Torrico of Fremont, who is a member of the joint committee, suggested to delay the audit. However when the hearing came, he was not present and did not vote on the VTA audit.
The audit will include VTA's structure, decision-making process, planning, and finances.
Mr. Burns' extra perks
When VTA's General Manager Michael Burns wants to call it a day and don't want to face the commute home in San Francisco, he is able to get the VTA to foot his hotel bills. This perk, according to the Mercury News article, was not disclosed upon hiring nor was included in his contract.
Perhaps on one of these nights, he should instead ride part way to San Francisco on VTA and experience Hotel 22.
COA missed opportunities?
Although the revised COA plan addresses some of the community concerns, some suggest on the VTA Rider's Union group that VTA new plan continues to be a reduction in service (of about 9%)because of the reduced overall peak vehicle demand, and that the improved service on some routes doesn't equal to the services that would be removed.
Although some routes have the potential to be popular, including lines 11, 168 and 181, some areas like the Valley Medical Center would lose direct service to Downtown San Jose.
Although VTA officially has no position on the audit, it is obvious that VTA would prefer not to be audited. Before the committee meeting, Senator Alberto Torrico of Fremont, who is a member of the joint committee, suggested to delay the audit. However when the hearing came, he was not present and did not vote on the VTA audit.
The audit will include VTA's structure, decision-making process, planning, and finances.
Mr. Burns' extra perks
When VTA's General Manager Michael Burns wants to call it a day and don't want to face the commute home in San Francisco, he is able to get the VTA to foot his hotel bills. This perk, according to the Mercury News article, was not disclosed upon hiring nor was included in his contract.
Perhaps on one of these nights, he should instead ride part way to San Francisco on VTA and experience Hotel 22.
COA missed opportunities?
Although the revised COA plan addresses some of the community concerns, some suggest on the VTA Rider's Union group that VTA new plan continues to be a reduction in service (of about 9%)because of the reduced overall peak vehicle demand, and that the improved service on some routes doesn't equal to the services that would be removed.
Although some routes have the potential to be popular, including lines 11, 168 and 181, some areas like the Valley Medical Center would lose direct service to Downtown San Jose.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Flea Market
The San Jose City Council has voted to destroy a familiar San Jose institution for a prospect of development.
The re-zoning of this property wouldn't have happened without the delusional politicians hoping that BART would be extended someday. NBC11's Danial Garza has predicted years ago: "I knew it was coming since the days when I'd interview then-County Supervisor Ron Gonzales about his seemingly far-fetched idea to bring BART to San Jose."
With cheap lands drying up in San Jose, the likelihood of having the Flea Market relocated is diminishing. Although the council members have encouraged the land owner to look for a new site, it is not a requirement.
As much as the land owner and the council members want everyone to believe that BART extension is a certainty, the BART project has been severely lacking funds for many years regardless of VTA's spin. The hope for the Flea Market to stay is not dead, and that decision would be made at the ballot box instead of the City Hall. Flea market supporters ought to defeat a new VTA tax which, if it is defeated, would pave ways for a new rail proposal that avoids the Flea Market area.
The re-zoning of this property wouldn't have happened without the delusional politicians hoping that BART would be extended someday. NBC11's Danial Garza has predicted years ago: "I knew it was coming since the days when I'd interview then-County Supervisor Ron Gonzales about his seemingly far-fetched idea to bring BART to San Jose."
With cheap lands drying up in San Jose, the likelihood of having the Flea Market relocated is diminishing. Although the council members have encouraged the land owner to look for a new site, it is not a requirement.
As much as the land owner and the council members want everyone to believe that BART extension is a certainty, the BART project has been severely lacking funds for many years regardless of VTA's spin. The hope for the Flea Market to stay is not dead, and that decision would be made at the ballot box instead of the City Hall. Flea market supporters ought to defeat a new VTA tax which, if it is defeated, would pave ways for a new rail proposal that avoids the Flea Market area.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Is Palo Alto looking for a fair or a special treatment?
A VTA committee has approved the COA operating plan despite pleas from Palo Alto officials to delay implemenation to allow the city to evaulate its transit needs this fall along with VTA.
The COA plan is scheduled to be implemented in January 2008.
The committee members representing other cities support the January implementation and thinks that Palo Alto is demanding special treatment.
Is Palo Alto demanding special treatment? Over the years, VTA has been accepting tax revenue from Palo Alto, yet the agency has neglected the city's needs. Meanwhile, VTA has conducted separate planning with Los Gatos, Morgan Hill and Gilroy to implement community buses prior to this proposal. In fact, VTA has operated two free shuttle routes in Los Gatos for two years before implementing new community bus fares last month.
The COA plan is scheduled to be implemented in January 2008.
The committee members representing other cities support the January implementation and thinks that Palo Alto is demanding special treatment.
Is Palo Alto demanding special treatment? Over the years, VTA has been accepting tax revenue from Palo Alto, yet the agency has neglected the city's needs. Meanwhile, VTA has conducted separate planning with Los Gatos, Morgan Hill and Gilroy to implement community buses prior to this proposal. In fact, VTA has operated two free shuttle routes in Los Gatos for two years before implementing new community bus fares last month.
Monday, August 13, 2007
New DASH and more
Last week, VTA rolled its new buses and drivers for the DASH. For much of the week, supervisors were on hand to introduce the new service to riders and train operators as they take the streets of Downtown San Jose.
Will the new service be more punctual than the old DASH? Despite new buses and unionized drivers, the DASH still retains the old routing via Santa Clara Street. Given the long traffic light cycle in downtown San Jose, it can take a while to make a left turn from San Fernando Street onto Almaden Blvd, and the right turn from Almaden Blvd onto Santa Clara Street (considering it is a freeway on-ramp). Before the turn over, New Century drivers sometimes took a shortcut by using Almaden Avenue (a small street a block away from Almaden Blvd) to get from San Fernando to Santa Clara. VTA drivers have yet to use such shortcuts to make the service more punctual.
Alum Rock - Eastridge light rail
The lines that were specifically excluded from the COA are the light rail lines. Since light rail is a fixed guideway system, there's little flexibility to make service changes on light rail. However, because light rail is more expensive to operate, a poorly designed light rail line will drain more operating resources than poorly designed bus lines.
Has VTA learned anything after finishing all these light rail extensions (Tasman East, Capitol, and Vasona)? It doesn't appear so when the VTA board recently approved a supplemental environmental impact report for the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge along Capitol Expressway.
This light rail extension was proposed as a part of the Downtown-East Valley major investment study (MIS) back in 1999 and 2000. The MIS specifically recommended light rail from downtown to Alum Rock via Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue, light rail from Alum Rock to Capitol light rail station along Capitol Expressway, and BRT along Monterey Highway.
The 2000 Measure A contained language for light rail on Santa Clara Street/Alum Rock Avenue, and from Alum Rock to Eastridge via Capitol Expressway. If, according to the language, light rail is constructed on Santa Clara Street and Capitol Expressway, it would replace the current 522 between downtown San Jose and the east valley.
However, due to narrow street width, funding shortage and conflict with the BART extension, light rail on Santa Clara Street is not going to happen. That means the light rail extension from Alum Rock to Eastridge won't help those who are traveling downtown. Would anyone ride the light rail for more than an hour to downtown through Milpitas when it takes less than half an hour on the 522? After three years since its opening, the Tasman East/Capitol light rail extension is not well used except the Great Mall station.
If VTA does not intend to force Eastridge riders to transfer to get to downtown, VTA would have to continue operating the 522 along Capitol Expressway even if light rail were extended. Without cutting some bus service, as in most rail extensions, VTA is significantly increasing its operating cost with little increase in ridership and fare revenue.
One of the expressed goals in the COA is to increase farebox recovery, yet the same agency is planning rail extensions that would do the exact opposite.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
The end of New Century DASH and more
Friday was the last day of the New Century operation of the DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle) in Downtown San Jose. On Monday August 5, VTA will take over the operation of the DASH, using the same type of bus already used on the Los Gatos and south county community bus routes. VTA is taking over the DASH per agreements with the unions that has added new job titles to operate and maintain community buses with lower pay.
The Great America and River Oaks shuttles have been converted to in-house operation in July. However, DASH was scheduled to be converted later due to the lack of buses at that time, as well as to provide a new paint job for the new buses.New Century became the DASH operator in 2002 as a new contractor. Before that time, Laidlaw was the contract operator and ran white shuttle buses.
COA tradeoffs
While the revised COA restored service to many outlaying communities, there's some tradeoffs. Some routes were originally planned to have expanded service were no longer so.
- Line 11 was originally to have hourly service on Sundays, there will be no Sunday service on the revised plan.
- Line 13 was originally to operate every 30 minutes throughout the day, but will only every 30 minutes during peak hours and hourly midday, along with a shorter operating hours, under the revised plan.
- A new line 43 was originally planned to provide service between Alum Rock light rail and Eastridge whenever the line 522 is not in service everyday until 10:00pm (9:00pm Sundays). Under the revised plan, this line will only operate on Sundays (the only day when line 522 is not in operation) until 6:30pm. Under the revised plan, the only way to travel from Alum Rock light rail to Eastridge is to take line 23 or 25 to Jackson and transfer to line 70. Another alternative is to transfer to line 70 at Hostetter station or at the Great Mall. (so what is the point of having light rail extended to Alum Rock?)
- Lines 72 and 73 were originally planned to run every 15 minutes on Saturday, but with the revised plan both lines will remain operating every 30 minutes.
- Line 82 will end service sooner with the revised plan than with the original plan.
- Line 180 was originally planned to run every 20 minutes on weekends, thereby meeting every Richmond-Fremont train, but with the revised plan the line will remain operating every 30 minutes.
MegaBus
Next Wednesday, a new competitor will join Greyhound, California Shuttle bus, and two other Chinatown operators to provide intercity bus service to Los Angeles.
MegaBus is a brand originated from Britain as a low fare intercity bus operator. The parent company, Stagecoach, brought the brand into the US a few years ago and began operation in Ohio area.
Unlike other Greyhound and other operators, MegaBus will only stop at major transit centers. In San Francisco, it will stop at the 4th & King Caltrain station. In Oakland, it will stop at West Oakland BART station. In San Jose, it will stop at San Jose Diridon Station. In Los Angeles, it will stop at the Union Station. Although tickets won't be sold there, the major advantage is easy connections to various transit lines, and LA Union Station is a much more preferable stop than the LA Greyhound station located in Skid Row.
Although Rod Diridon, speaking as the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, questions the profitability of both Megabus and Greyhound, there is a lack of intercity bus competition compared to the East Coast. In the East Coast, travelers between Washington DC and New York City have far more options besides the airlines, the pricey Amtrak Acela, and Greyhound. Chinatown buses (with various operators) are charging $20 one way and $35 roundtrip. They are well used and operate throughout the day.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
VTA releases revised COA plan
VTA recently released a revised COA plan after a series of public meetings. The revised plan has addressed most of the concerns raised during the public comment period.
Summary of the changes made in the revised plan:
- Foothill College will be served by the extended route 40 from San Antonio Shopping Center, and line 52 will also serve the college from Downtown Mountain View as it is today. Line 23 will end at De Anza College.
- West Valley College will continue to have service from the north and the east. Line 53, originally proposed to cut service south of De Anza College, will rather be extended along the current line 54 alignment to West Valley College. Line 54 will end at De Anza College as proposed earlier. From the east, line 37, rather than be eliminated, will be extended from Camden & Union to Winchester light rail station, and then to West Valley College via Hacienda, Burrows, Pollard, Quito and Allendale, similar to the alignment suggested by Zakhary Mallett of VTA Riders' Union. Line 27 will end at Good Samaritian Hospital as originally planned.
- The Villages in Evergreen Valley would be served by the realigned line 39. In addition, line 39 will be converted to a community bus route and will also serve the new Evergreen Village Square. Evergreen College will be served by line 31 from Eastridge as originally proposed.
- Line 35 will continue to serve Stanford Shopping Center. VTA originally planned to cut service to the shopping center due to duplication of service by SamTrans, even though SamTrans does not collect sales taxes generated at the shopping center.
- Line 51 will serve De Anza College
- Line 61 and 62 will operate on Hedding between Coleman & 1st St, thereby maintain service to traffic court (which some people who go there should get there on transit and not driving), county jail, and the Hall of Justice.
- Line 63 will continue to serve the Almaden Valley (except the Via Valiente portion) and line 13 will maintain its current routing.
- Line 65 will be converted to community buses but will maintain service to Downtown San Jose. In the south, the line will start on Blossom Hill and Meridian. The original plan would cut service to downtown, thereby eliminating direct service between the San Jose City College and Downtown San Jose.
- Line 76 will be maintained but will operate only on days when Los Gatos High School is in session.
- Line 88 will operate from San Antonio Shopping Center to the VA Hospital via San Antonio, Fabian, Charleston, and Arastradero. School days service will be provided along Louis. The original plan would operate along El Camino and Arastradero. The portion between the VA Hospital and California Avenue Caltrain station would be taken over by a new community bus line 89.
- Lines 66 and 68 will keep their current route.
- Lines 104 and 122 will keep their current service.
Major changes including routing of lines 23, 64, and 81, along with the implementation of new lines 168 and 181 are still in the revised plan. The revised plan also includes the elimination of lines 38, 44, 59, 85, 101, and 305.
The VTA Board is scheduled to approve the COA operating plan at its meeting on August 30.
Summary of the changes made in the revised plan:
- Foothill College will be served by the extended route 40 from San Antonio Shopping Center, and line 52 will also serve the college from Downtown Mountain View as it is today. Line 23 will end at De Anza College.
- West Valley College will continue to have service from the north and the east. Line 53, originally proposed to cut service south of De Anza College, will rather be extended along the current line 54 alignment to West Valley College. Line 54 will end at De Anza College as proposed earlier. From the east, line 37, rather than be eliminated, will be extended from Camden & Union to Winchester light rail station, and then to West Valley College via Hacienda, Burrows, Pollard, Quito and Allendale, similar to the alignment suggested by Zakhary Mallett of VTA Riders' Union. Line 27 will end at Good Samaritian Hospital as originally planned.
- The Villages in Evergreen Valley would be served by the realigned line 39. In addition, line 39 will be converted to a community bus route and will also serve the new Evergreen Village Square. Evergreen College will be served by line 31 from Eastridge as originally proposed.
- Line 35 will continue to serve Stanford Shopping Center. VTA originally planned to cut service to the shopping center due to duplication of service by SamTrans, even though SamTrans does not collect sales taxes generated at the shopping center.
- Line 51 will serve De Anza College
- Line 61 and 62 will operate on Hedding between Coleman & 1st St, thereby maintain service to traffic court (which some people who go there should get there on transit and not driving), county jail, and the Hall of Justice.
- Line 63 will continue to serve the Almaden Valley (except the Via Valiente portion) and line 13 will maintain its current routing.
- Line 65 will be converted to community buses but will maintain service to Downtown San Jose. In the south, the line will start on Blossom Hill and Meridian. The original plan would cut service to downtown, thereby eliminating direct service between the San Jose City College and Downtown San Jose.
- Line 76 will be maintained but will operate only on days when Los Gatos High School is in session.
- Line 88 will operate from San Antonio Shopping Center to the VA Hospital via San Antonio, Fabian, Charleston, and Arastradero. School days service will be provided along Louis. The original plan would operate along El Camino and Arastradero. The portion between the VA Hospital and California Avenue Caltrain station would be taken over by a new community bus line 89.
- Lines 66 and 68 will keep their current route.
- Lines 104 and 122 will keep their current service.
Major changes including routing of lines 23, 64, and 81, along with the implementation of new lines 168 and 181 are still in the revised plan. The revised plan also includes the elimination of lines 38, 44, 59, 85, 101, and 305.
The VTA Board is scheduled to approve the COA operating plan at its meeting on August 30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
