So far, most discussion about Measure A has been about whether we should pass a half-cent tax to help build BART. A more important question is whether—even if we pass a new tax—we will get BART. I’m not saying the money will get siphoned off; I’m just asking if it is possible to build it.
The VTA is assuming higher sales tax growth than other agencies. While the county (and most cities) assumes a 4% growth rate, the VTA is assuming 5.8% growth. County tax forecasts are usually pretty accurate. If they are accurate this time, the VTA will have a $2.2 billion shortfall (in 2006 dollars).
The catch is that the VTA doesn’t have $2.2 billion of wiggle room. You could cancel every project except BART and existing service, and still not save that much. Cutting bus service doesn’t work because it would cost us federal funds (Rule 13c prohibits the use of federal funds on a project which causes a loss of union jobs), which means we’d have to cut BART.
A few years of additional delay might be enough, and that is before anything else goes wrong. Twice already, we’ve had to lower our estimates for the amount and timing of federal funds. Since we’re still not recommended by the feds, it’s not unlikely we’ll have to do so again.
State funds are also far from guaranteed. The BART board has to be willing to build an extension to Warm Springs that could require a VTA subsidy. Not many voters live in Warm Springs, so the BART board doesn’t lose much by dragging their heels.
Interest rates could rise, reducing our borrowing capacity and increasing bonding costs. Since the latest plan is to use adjustable rates, we’re especially vulnerable.
And problems could exist locally. It doesn’t take many endangered snakes or tunnel leaks to drive up the cost by a few hundred million. Chinese demands for steel and concrete are likely to drive costs even higher.
Any one of these six things could raise the cost by a few hundred million dollars. Even if I’m wrong about five out of six, we won’t have anything more than a hole in the ground.
Greg Perry is a member of the VTA Board of Directors and the Vice Mayor of Mountain View.
Since this blog is titled “Measure A” let’s talk about the June inititiative.
I work with the foster care system and have been shocked by the lack of attention each kid gets. Some social workers only see their kids once a month and my understanding is that over the past four years, County budget reductions have led to the feezing/elimination of 60 social worker positions. These are the folks charged with making judgments/recommendations on the future of these kids—scary!
The State and Feds have exacerbated the County’s budget uncertainties and this year is going to be even worse. The defense budget grows while the budget for social services shrinks and the County is left holding the bag. Foster kids are left to suffer. Those who “age out” of the system must fend for themselves and are dependent on the safety net services provided by the County, including public transit, health care and more.
I’m perfectly willing to pay a little more each year to ensure that those dependent on public transit (including BART) and other county services can make ends meet in Santa Clara County.
Greg,
Stop being so negative. The so-called “challenges” of bringing BART to SV can be conquered. As long as people in this County work together toward common goals.
I see Mr. Perry not as someone who unites this valley, but someone who tries to tear it apart under the guise of being an ousider or insurgent
I don’t fully understand the message here. BART is going to be tough to build. Okay. I subscribe to the saying, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.”
I voted for BART. I knew it would be expensive.
Give me a shovel so I can start digging and help out.
NEWSFLASH : Greg Perry’s Against BART.
How startling…
It’s more difficult to build consensus than it is to tear it down. I’d like to see Greg Perry work to achieve something positive rather than continue on this tirade against BART. I voted for BART, along with 70% of voters in our County. Give it up Greg. Get BART here ASAP.
Hey Greg (Post #1) –
Everyone in the Valley would benefit from BART, in decreased traffic congestion, easier transit access to other Bay Area destinations, and yes BART will stimulate our local economies.
Look, We should have brought BART down here years ago, when San Francisco, Alameda County and Contra Costa signed on. It would have cost us pennies compared to what it’ll cost us now.
Who knew then that the South Bay would give birth to one of the biggest high tech centers in the world.
If we don’t build the BART extension now, when we know we really need it, we’d be really stupid. If you think the price tag is high now, wait another 10 years—that is if Silicon Valley hasn’t choked on its own traffic by then.
Greg Reminds me of the old Saturday Morning Cartoon character Glum who would yell out “We’re doomed! We’ll never make it!”
C’mon Greg, this County has real issues to tackle; there’s no time for Saturday Morning Cartoons, step aside so the adults can lead.
Greg, you are on the right track. Get rid of M. Tucker. Burns is a failure too—the public will find that out soon enough. More later.
I sure hope Cindy’s campaign manager (who is not a lobbist) wades in on this issue. I’d like to read his take on BART since Cindy is Chair of VTA at present.
My feeling on this is if it is going to be a tax then run it as a proposed tax with 2/3rds majority. Based on that, it won’t pass because there are not enough supporters within San Jose. This is an issue for out of towners working in the South Bay.
Smells like a VTA insider has descended on this column today.
If BART to SJ is so important to the “region”, then why wasn’t it placed on “Regional” Measure 2 a couple of years ago?
Anyway to limit the BART tax to just the people that live in downtown SJ?
Can we set up downtown toll booths so that people that use downtown can pay for BART?
Here’s how you bring BART to SJ
– bring BART to Milpitas
– SJ annexes Milpitas
– SJ builds a new billion dollar CH in Milpitas and relocates
Now you have BART to downtown SJ.
This is only slightly more unrealistic and costly than the koolaid induced visions emanating from VTA and CH.
Reason: People don’t trust the Supervisors. A survey / field poll confirmed this.
From what I’ve heard (#3) VTA is using estimates based on 30 years worth of data. I’ve seen cities with higher projections than the county’s. What makes the county right and VTA wrong? Perhaps the truth is the reverse. But bottom line, if the estimates prove to be off, future leaders will need to address it. If we decided not to sit on our hands because we weren’t confident about what the future would bring, life would come to a halt. No one would buy a house (what if property values bust?!), or get married (what if I stop loving my mate?), or have a child (what if something should happen to him/her?) or start a company (what if it fails?). Nothing risked, nothing gained!
VTA Wistleblower
If you have “more” to say about Michael Burns or any other public official, then come out with it; stop hiding behind anonymity and your blog.
If you have proof of anything nefarious, I double dog dare you to lay it out.
So far its sounds like a lot of hot air from p.o.‘d peeon
One other note that might be of help. In the Merc today there is an article/editorial about VTA. It is right on except it is not just outreach prob but all of VTA. For example, hiring and promoting incompetent people is the VTA way. For proof look at the organizational charts over the last 5 to 10 yrs. Look how many VTA people were promoted in such a short span of time; yet their pay went up substanstially—promoting incompetence. The result was wasted money on projects and personal. The Merc blames the economy but thats not the whole truth. Most of it was wasted on projects and people not needed. The architect of this organizational plan was Matt Tucker. LoL, he served his purpose; he helped kill BART.
Mr. Perry has spent the last two years raising every objection possible to the BART project. He plays an important role in ensuring we know all the obstacles that are in front of us.
The problem is, with his way of thinking, no project would ever move forward. It’s thinking like this that kept our county out of the BART system several decades ago.
Yes Mr. Perry, interest rates will rise…but they’ll fall too. We’ve all seen that. Traffic, however, never gets better, it only gets worse. So, let’s get on to the solution and stop worrying about every bump on the road.
It’s time to correct past mistakes and get Downtwon connected to BART.
A. Hamilton –
I could not agree more. But Greg Perry’s not just being an obstructionist here though, he’s just plain wrong.
In fact, last week, a court ordered that Greg Perry’s ballot argument against Measure A be changed to amend and/or delete certain sections. The Judge found that 4 psrts of the argument were incorrect and misleading.
In this blog, here again we have Greg making misleading statements.
I voted against the original Measure A after attending a community forum at St. Paul’s where Blanca Alvarado debated (sort of) Carl Guardino. Seemed to me that the costs were not being projected correctly and that there were HUGE assumptions of federall dollars that would come rolling in.
But the voters spoke and over 2/3’s said bring BART to San Jose. Now that money has been spent on the project and the plans are so far along I will be voting yes this time around, otherwise all the dollars that have been spent go down the drain. I just hope that if the measure passes that the Supervisors don’t spend away on other items.
Greg Perry is right on. This tax is excessive, regressive and unnecessary. It will give Santa Clara County the dubious distinction of being tied with Alameda county for the highest sales tax in the state, just the thing this valley needs as it tries to attract and retain jobs.
And Greg does not mention that better alternatives exist to this hideously expensive, poorly routed BART extension. Go here to see one:
http://bayrailalliance.org/southbayrailvision/
You can build a better Fremont-San Jose rail connection for less cost AND build all of the other 2000 Measure A projects without this unnecessary tax. Valley residents already have an excessive federal, state and local tax burden. The last thing we need is to jack up the cost of living even more and waste the money on BART. Keep fighting the good fight, Greg
Mr. Perry,
Caltrain costs tons of money and it doesn’t even come up to my doorstep in Alum Rock / East San Jose. Why don’t we just shut it down since it isn’t serving every constituent in Silicon Valley, and cut our losses? 30,000 riders per day is ridiculous for an 80-mile-long train line. Oh, but wait. It and its baby-bullet serve YOUR downtown. Convenient.
Yes, there are a lot of economic challenges plaguing BART, from continually rising labor construction costs to materials costs to environmental issues. On the existence of those challenges you are correct—but if anything that only serves as further impetus to get this thing moving NOW and stop waiting for tomorrow. Let’s get it to at least Berryessa, above ground, before we can hang up on the idea. Then we can talk about the costs of tunneling and going into downtown San Jose.
This does not have to be all or nothing, people.
To #14’s point (which is espoused by many people often), yes, we should have been part of BART from the beginning. But Santa Clara County wasn’t even offered a seat at the table in the initial discussions (1950s and 60s) between SF, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. SM and Marin were the two counties that opted out. We didn’t even have a chance to opt-in. SCC was still a cowtown in those days. (These details come courtesy of a friend who has worked on BART expansions FOR BART for 30 years. I think he knows the history a little better than most folks.)
So let’s see if we have this right – most of you have NO confidence in Ron Gonzales politics, judgment and spending decisions BUT you NOW believe and trust him that BART to San Jose is a good cost and transit decision compared to what transit advocates are telling you
reality check so after opposing vta spending money on bart you now throw more taxes at bad idea rather than use bart planning and route to run light rail to downtown which could connect all other light rail lines you need a reality check on bart or light rail to downtown costs
I will be voting against Measure A. The Supervisors, except for Alvarado, did a disservice to the county by allowing a stealth tax to be on the ballot. If they want a BART tax then be honest and upfront about it.
Also, it is apparent that the current 30 year sales tax that can only be used for transit projects is a mistake. I will support any candidate and/or initiative that repeals (or modifies it to be 70% highway and 30% transit) this poorly conceived tax.
Finally, BART to San Jose down the east side of the Bay is wrong, and it will never be built. If BART supporters want BART so bad then come back with a plan that brings it down the west side of the Bay.
The current BART plan will not reduce traffic in the least. The studies indicating traffic reductions are simply voodoo studies, and have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, we see these types of voodoo studies all the time in government projects, especially when they start to talk about induced and indirect effects or income. Stick to what is measurable, not what is desirable.
#29 Yes—I don’t want to lose the money already spent on BART by abandoning it now. I want a return on my tax dollar investment. Not an ideal position for us taxpayers to be in but to me it does not make sense to cut and run now after so much money has already been spent.
#28 Last time I looked Gonzo has no say over VTA spending, he has been booted, (twice) off of the board. The money from this new tax will be in the hands of the County Supervisors, let’s just hope that they spend it wisely.
BART and also VTA busses, each carry less passengers than they did 25 years ago. After we build BART we have to run it. MTC reports the cost of one passenger, one way one day will be $100.30 or 200 a day or $1,000 a week. But who is counting.
What is the cost of building a 4.8 mile tunnel under dowthtown SJ?
whats up wih blog authors taking a bashing and not debating greg pat dando etc – no guts no glory
I think that Greg Perry must have had some traumatic experience on a BART train when he was a child. It is the only way I can explain his emotional ranting about BART.
As a transplant from the Northeast, I don’t understand why it is so hard for he and a few others to believe that a connected public transit system is necessary. The greatest sin of any transit system is not to get people where they need to go. Perry’s line of thinking is what has kept Downtown San Jose and the Airport from being connected by one light-rail train, like in other major cities.
I have spent a considerable amount of time Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, D.C. and New York. They all boast connectivity and high-ridership. What’s more, they can plan for higher density infill development, as the population grows.
Yes, it is expensive, but guess what…it is only going to get more expensive the longer we wait. So, unless Perry is planning on inventing a time machine between VTA meetings then perhaps he should stop wasting other people’s time and seriously consider some hypnotherapy to deal with his repressed memories.
The true waste of taxpayers’ dollars comes from all of the staff reports and meeting time that has been spent putting out Perry’s fires.
We should never allow fear and insecurity stop true leaders from preparing for tomorrow.
reread #29 – build light rail rather than bart on same route for less cost or more public transit in county same cost read vta study
many people still do not understand there are 2 very different arguments about bart to downtown
bart vs light rail at less cost on same route with money for more / better county wide transit connections by transit advocates supported by transit experts who want more transit for our tax money
bart vs no bart by those opposed to public transit
Greg Perry may have only wanted to focus on his opposition to BART in his posting this morning, but his campaign web site is much more revealing.
If you disagree with Perry and his partners, you are attacked and derided. Their web site includes a vicious and ugly attack against Rick Callendar, the president of our local NAACP Chapter. Rick is attacked and ridiculed for simply disagreeing with Mr. Perry’s misleading and inaccurate ballot argument, and asking the Court to review the ballot argument. It is very dificult to have wording of a ballot argument changed, but the judge agreed with Mr. Callendar about several factual inaccuracies that Perry and his allies tried to include in their argument – in which he insinuated the tax was longer than it is, that the rate is highest in the state – and other misleading statements.
The response on the No on Measure A web site by Perry’s ballot argument co-signatories was to attack and ridicule Mr. Callendar. It was inappropriate, uncalled for, and if Perry has any decency, it will be removed from their web site today. African-Americans may only account for nine percent of this county’s population, but even if it was just one person in this county, we deserve to be treated better.
A lot of people seem not to like me. Fair enough. But, whether or not I’m a bum, the numbers don’t show enough money to build BART.
A. Hamilton, Betty Boop, and Chemistry Joe tackled that one.
To Boop, the reason I trust county estimates instead of VTA is that the county estimates are closer to historical growth rates. Over the past 25 years, real per capital sales tax growth has averaged 0.16 percent. The VTA estimates are for nearly 2% real per capita sales tax growth. County estimates also have been more accurate in the past.
To Chemistry Joe, I agree that it may be possible to get state and federal funds. We might get them, and we might not. If we don’t, we’re a billion short with no contingency plan. That’s all.
And to A. Hamilton’s point that interest rates both rise and fall. They do. The futures markets seem to indicate that short term rates are likely to rise next. They might well fall again later, but in the interim we will have paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in added interest.
And remember, to build BART, I need to be wrong on 6 out of 6, plus we need an extra 300 million from the ether.
Put another way, we can pass this tax, but we won’t get BART.
Side topic: A Hamilton raised another point, that being negative means doing nothing. I disagree. I’m a firm supporter of ACE, the highway 17 bus, community shuttles, dumbarton rail, double-tracking to gilroy, Caltrain, and grade separations. All of these can be moved along with no new tax. (And most are not in my district.)
Unfortunately, Greg doesn’t have the foresight to understand that the Measure A debate isn’t just about BART and the VTA.
The larger picture is the health of our County. Our County provides us with critical infrastructure, emergency services, and provides a social safety net for the less privileged in the county.
We can’t count on Sacramento, or D.C. to help us solve our problems that for sure. We need to act locally
I’m willing to pay $50/year to cover foster care, insurance for kids, emergency services, shore-up funding for the Valley Medical Center, help low-income families and much more…
Those who argue that BART to San Jose will satisfy an existing “need” are certainly correct. That they argue it out loudly and with much venom does not increase the measure of their need, something I’m not so sure they realize. Those whose needs would be satisfied by BART include large employers throughout the Bay Area, those who live commute-distance to Bay Area jobs, and those builders who intend to stretch the definition of commute-distance all the way into the Sierra Nevada range.
But there are, of course, other existing needs. Stabilizing, and even reducing, the sales tax is most certainly a measurable need—one that affects everyone from the poor slob struggling to get by to the local car dealer whose ability to compete is being undermined by his own government. An increase in the tax rate is an increase to the cost of living here, shopping here, and owning a business here.
Here-Here-Here is the cost of Measure A; There-There-There are almost all its benefits. For someone who is somewhat neutral on the BART issue, things look seriously lopsided. I wonder how the commuters’ enthusiasm would hold up if part of BART’s funding were to come from an income tax on out-of-county employees?
Lastly, there is the need for honesty in government. In the wake of GarbageGate and after surrering months of our mayor’s lying, arrogant bluster, Measure A, in all its vague, duplicitous glory, is an insult. Personally, I don’t vote YES to insults.
Think BART as another Bay Bridge east span in the making, in which the project doesn’t provide significant transportation improvements, has delayed for many years, and the cost increased exponentially. Other than big money contractors and VTA bureaucrats, do you see grassroots transit groups supporting the BART extension as it is planned?
One thing for sure is that Greg Perry is making sure that there is due diligence. I suggest to those who are so confident about the cost and revenue estimate to finance the project privately instead of forcing other taxpayers paying into this money pit.
Although it is true that BART carries about 300,000 passengers per day, and half of that ridership is between the East Bay and San Francisco, in which the only other real competition is the Bay Bridge. Caltrain doesn’t get the benefit of competing against one toll bridge; it has to compete with two free freeways, local roads, and BART north of Millbrae. You will be wrong to think that Santa Clara County will replicate the ridership level in San Francisco. The BART extension will have to compete with two freeways, light rail, and Caltrain.
There are a lot of myths going on about why Santa Clara County is not included in the BART board originally. The fact is that Santa Clara withdrew from the district knowing that they don’t have the density to support BART, and that the county taxpayers would instead pay for construction in the other county. An article in this newsletter summarized the facts in that era: http://bayrailalliance.org/newsletter/2005/2005-2nov_sot.pdf
By the way, Greg Perry is right that if the revenue project goes wrong, cost or interest rate rises, VTA will not be able to fulfill its promises. It is absolutely irresponsible to say that we can take care of it in the future if it does happen. Perry is making sure that the north county, as well as the south county, will get its fair share of transportation improvements. The best way to ensure fair allocation is to have a consensus on an expenditure plan, along with a process of making changes when situation changes. Measure A this June lacks both by intent.
The good thing is that it is not too late to prevent the BART project into another Bay Bridge project.
Greg, disregard the negative comments from these posters. BART to San Jose is dead. Thank God for VTA upper-management using smoke and mirrors and other practices to divert the Board and publics attention. BTW, this will snowball. Oh, Gage’s help didn’t help.
The Mercury (junk paper) or a responsible paper so do an investigative piece on VTA. The Metro has some great investigative reporters. Who wants to sell papers and enlighten the public as to how they were and are getting ripped off.
Although I support the concept of building BART I have some problems with Measure A. It promises everything and guarantees nothing other than a half-cent sales tax.
We all know it’s a BART tax, but the SVLG has dressed it up as a tax for hospitals, county services, etc., and…oh yeah… “transportation.” What do you supposed would be the fate of any Supervisor who decided not to spend a good portion of that money on BART? Would the unions and the SVLG say “That’s OK, we really DID want you to spend it all on health care for the poor…”?
BTW – when I see so many responses that repeat the same words (“negative,” “whiner” etc.) it smells like an organized response.
Very few posts seem to be challenging Mr. Perry’s blog on the economic analysis he’s offered. There seems to be a faction that goes ballistic anytime an anti-BART point of view is put forth.
Relax folks, if BART is a good project you will get it built on it’s merits.
If we vote for the half cent sales tax in June for BART, is there another sales tax coming soon after to improve our local highways?
Last Sunday the Merc printed an article “New tax may delay traffic projects” by Gary Richards that said there is no more local money for any major highway project. From the article:
“But with a new tax and future measures aimed almost exclusively at mass transit, road improvements could grind to a halt.”
I supported Measure A but after reading this article I am not sure if I will support the tax in June unless we get clear information from our leaders about future taxes needed to support our highways. How many more decades much Santa Clara county residents endure dangerous but critical roads such as 152 out to I5?
See http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14246182.htm
On the Measure A lawsuit-
The judge issued no findings, of inaccuracy or otherwise. We didn’t even get as far as an evidentiary hearing.
The two parties negotiated before court and agreed on minor wording changes. One example:
“They want to raise your taxes, but not their own”
became
“They want to raise your taxes, and lower their own.”
After that, we each issued press releases claiming a big victory.
What are the odds? Where can I make a bet?
I’m probably a little off-topic here but Carpetbagger had me laughing pretty hard. I haven’t seen a reference to “Glum” from the “Adventures of Gulliver” in 2 or 3 decades. “We’re Doomed!” LOL.
OK, back to pros and cons of measure A (which I haven’t made up my mind on yet)
Dude, Bart will never come to SJ because downtown will never, ever, never have 400 highrises of housing + jobs. It’s so lame to even think of this nonense. You need maximum density just like Chicago and New York. Who are you fooling?!
Nothing.
SC County didn’t participate with BART at its inception—a huge mistake.
The longer we delay in moving forward the more costly it is going to be—let’s pay for it now.
There are no doubt lots of arguments about how it can be done better, cheaper et al—some of them I’ve made in the past.
But while we task force, research, debate and generally postpone action, it is costing us.
The question, “would you pay 1/2 cent more to take 300,000 cars off the road?
Seems like a good deal to me.
David-
Did you ever think that maybe those cities were densified because of mass transit? I think that if BART came to San Jose, downtown would end up growing exponentially.
The only piece I am having trouble with is the crime, drugs and gangs that would have easy access to our relatively safe community. So I remain undecided…
i miss their stupid arguments and Perry attacks.
If Santa Clara county insisted on building BART in the 60s, either BART would be dead or that Santa Clara County be in the same situation at Livermore, paying 40+ years of taxes and still no service.
If BART is indeed a cost effective project, then VTA or the county won’t have to ask the voters to raise their taxes once again. Even if Measure A is approved, VTA may still want to ask the voters at least one more time to raise their taxes. Isn’t that what the commuters crossing the bridges are facing now, as their toll goes up and up repeatedly due to the Bay Bridge fiasco?
The question is not “would you pay 1/2 cent more to take 300,000 cars off the road?”, because 1/2 cent on BART cannot take 300,000 cars off the road. VTA estimates that BART would have 100,000 riders per day, which by itself is highly questionable. The subway in Los Angeles, a city with four times of population of San Jose, currently carries 100,000 riders per day with twice as many subway stations. Their bus ridership is over 1,000,000 per day. VTA’s: less than 100,000.
The problem with this half-percent sales tax increase is this: “We don’t know where the money will go.” We cannot trust a County Board of Supervisors that will pander to powerful special interests, and make a backroom deal to place this measure on the ballot. We cannot trust the powerful special interest that’s backing this tax increase that’ll require us to pay more taxes, at the same time that they are lobbying Sacramento so they themselves can pay less. We cannot trust the financial black hole called VTA not to absorb all of the additional revenue that Measure “A” might generate. What we can trust is that an informed electorate will decide to Vote NO on this tax increase.
Douglas A. McNea
President, Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association
http://www.SVTaxpayers.org
I ride both systems. I have passes for both systems. I know the pros and cons of both systems. I know what each need. I read this non-sense w/ sadness.
It the nail in the coffin for BART and Gonzales.
like diridon sta.—ha
Rich most of the time I agree with you but not ” would you pay 1/2 cent more to take 300,000 cars off the road? NO after being lied to by Ron for many years and Carl who wants taxpayers to pay for what hitec companies should help pay Now Measure A fuzzy math tax and a tax for highways
Sorry would have voted for county healthcare safety net etc Supervisors have mistaken voters – You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time – Abraham Lincoln
Combined BART, VTA and SVLG is like a big circus joke
SJI is to be commended for allowing Greg Perry to blog on here for Measure A.
The transit advocacy/watchdog group I head was amongst the first to oppose Measure A for numerous reasons. Amongst which: no specifics on what programs would be funded out of Measure A. (example: how much would VTA get? How much would groups like the Housing Trust Fund get under Measure A?) Given the scandals at City Hall on public trust, that the county/SVLG would get together on a sales tax measure with no specifics shows how little they have learned about public trust. The San Jose/Silicon Valley Biz Journal was right in saying we need to take the “high road” on this sales tax proposal…
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/02/27/editorial1.html
We need to make the Supervisors and VTA more accountable for the 8.25% in sales taxes we already give the county. For transportation alone, we already pay 3 different sales taxes – two of which permanent since 1978 – and the 1/2-cent tax that took effect on the 1st which voters in the county approved back in 2000.
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/ffa/taxme.html
I was laughing hard at Carl’s commentary piece in the Merc last Friday on the “successes” of VTA and the taxes we pay them and the county. I was also laughing at the Merc’s editorial on how Measure A helped build roads like the 101/85 interchange. Why?
I always hear traffic reports on KLIV on how “highway expansions” like 101 in the Morgan Hill area are slow – even with new lanes added in 2003 thanks to 1996 Measure A/B. Makes you wonder how long the “traffic relief” promised by SVLG and politicians like Don Gage really lasted. Additional proposed growth in nearby San Benito County could add even more gridlock to the area of 101 that got the extra lanes…
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=183114
Want to learn how our light rail system is amongst the least efficient, worst designed, and most expensive to run in America? This article from the Merc from February 2004 tells the story…
http://www.sanbrunobart.com/Caltrain/News/040207-1.shtml
Even the new Vasona line from Campbell to downtown San Jose has only a fraction (around 1,500, as of December) of the 9,000 daily riders VTA promised. It is another example of VTA overstating ridership numbers to get your support – particularly on sales tax measures. You know how bad our light rail system is when other publications use our system as an example of the failure of light rail in the Valley:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/07/14/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_166520.php
Let us not forget also about the County’s Civil Grand Jury report slamming VTA’s fiscal mismanagement and their symbiotic relationship with the SVLG, also back in 2004:
http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2004/BoardStructureFinancialMgmtVTA.pdf#search=‘santa clara county civil grand jury VTA’
You know VTA is still dysfunctional when you get email from staff in their Construction division about meetings with PG&E on unpaid utility bills. This while they are still pursuing boondoggles like the BART extension and wanting you to dig deeper in to your wallet. VTA’s mismanagement of your tax dollars – then and now – was a prime reason why I moved to Santa Cruz nearly two years ago. I could not stand spending money in the county to support a transit agency that showed no regard for how its finances were spent. (I do much of my shopping in unincorporated areas of the county like Soquel and Aptos where the sales tax is an even 8%. When I shop in Monterey County the sales tax there is 7.75%.)
By passing Measure A in June, it will be cheaper to shop in San Francisco (8.5% sales tax), San Mateo County (8.25%) and even New York City (8.375%) than in the Valley. If I moved out at 8.25% sales tax, imagine the exodus of small businesses, working families, and seniors when it becomes too expensive to live in the Valley.
Those who had the time to attack Perry clearly have the time to make the Supes, VTA Board members, and our state/federal elected officials more accountable and more fiscally responsible. Every voter in the County needs to reject Measure A in June, and send a message to the Supes, VTA, and SVLG that it’s well past time for fiscal responsibility, not more taxes.
NO.
thanks C.G.
The BART system has enough problems as it is. Why bother extending it to San Jose? However, if it is to be extended, it should only be as far as The Great Mall in Milpitas. One can hop on the light rail train or buses from there.
VTA is corrupt. Gonzales is a liar. The Supervisors can’t be trusted. SVLG is lost. You think I will support any kind tax from any of these people or groups?
This is a primer.
waste my time, waste my money for what I dont have any
Finfan I have to agree with you and your vote. I am voting no on this tax.
I’m probably not going to vote Yes on A. The way the supes handled this has a strong smell to it. I can’t bring myself to support it at this time.
This county’s voters had the opportunity to implement a 1/2% tax in the late 60’s and they voted it down. One poster advised that even if that measure had past nearly 40 years ago, we probably would be in the same situation as Livermore and that may be true.
I’m also wondering if the measure had passed and the line was built, just where would BART have ended up down here? Nobody in charge back in those days had even a shred of vision, and I can only imagine the destructive path the route might have been allowed to take, creating an elevated eyesore just like it is through most of the East Bay. Our dying downtown back then didn’t command much respect and never would a subway stretch ever have been considered. We’d have likely ended up with a noisy elevated system that cut a swath through our neighborhoods similar to the ill-fated Cypress viaduct in Oakland. No thanks.
I think if BART ever does make it down here, it will be designed in a way that allows for peaceful coexistence, at least.
The trolley system (sorry, but “light rail” is just the lamest term on earth) can’t even be included in the same sentence with BART. It’s much slower and covers less territory in way more time. Stepping off a BART train at the Great Mall and then using the trolley to get dowtown would double someone’s travel time at a minimum. If BART continued to downtown from the Great Mall, you’d be there in like 10 minutes or less, not a good hour later like if you had to hop over onto a trolley. That idea will never fly with me. If we’re gonna do BART, then we can’t do it half-assed.
Santa Clara County voters never voted on BART in the 60s.
Voters only in three counties (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) voted on BART. Voters in Contra Costa actually voted against it, but since the vote is counted in three counties combined, San Francisco carried the election.
So if other suburban counties, Santa Clara included, were to vote on BART. It may well be defeated.
Also, under the original plan, Marin County would get BART before Santa Clara County. Marin County actually wanted BART but was kicked out from the BART district before the BART bond vote because BART didn’t have the tax base from Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to pay for BART construction in Marin County.
So the chance of Santa Clara County getting BART in the 60s was very little.
More on Greg Perry:
He is willing to ask the tough questions and make the challenges no one has the courage to ask. Case in point: at the VTA Board meeting in March where a committee to develop transit projects in poorer areas of the county was formed. Perry questioned how the final decision on what projects would be made by a committee consisting of VTA, SVLG, and the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County. Supervisor Kniss, another VTA Board member, became quite upset at Perry’s questioning of status quo.
Perry was the only dissenting vote in the forming of this committee.
If you want to volunteer to defeat Measure A, please email [email protected]. Given the six-figure war chest and backing of big business/labor by the SVLG, help in alll aspects of campaigning – and donations – is surely needed.
Of all the responses to Greg’s initial post, Eugene #60’s makes by far the most sense. I urge all the pro-tax SLVG groupies on the list to follow his links and research the issue.
No on Measure A.
any normal person reading this would vote no. slam dunk
I know there was a vote in Santa Clara County somewhere in the 1968-1970 range. I wrote a letter to the Mercury about the results.
the real deal
I gotta’ ask the question again… who in the Valley benefits from BART? We’re all going to reach deeper in our pockets for the sales tax increment yet it’s largely commuters from other counties who will benefit. Oh, let’s not forget Lord and Prince Carl Guardino who represents the large corporations looking for an increased labor pool. Let the commuters and corporations pay for BART.
As a Mountain View resident, I can tell you that Greg Perry’s blog is further proof as to why he was only elected to the ceremonial post of Vice Mayor on a 4-3 vote. He is willing to do anything and say anything to try to advance his personal political agenda. I read his ballot rebuttal against Measure A the other day, and below is just one example of how far he is willing to go to stretch the truth. He wrote in his rebuttal:
* “The county allows many employees to retire at 50, but still keep 90 percent of their pay. That money could have been spent on services, but wasn’t.”
What Perry doesn’t want voters to know is that the county has more than 15,000 employees, and less than three dozen employees qualify for that pension plan. Those 25-30 people, out of more than 15,000, are all public safety officers with more than 30 years of service. When Perry puts his life on the line for even one day, he might start earning the right to attack public safety officers who have risked their lives for 30-plus years.
Fact? Fiction? With Perry, we have learned you never know.
Has VTA agreed to pay for BART operaing losses in Santa Clara County and if so how would this affect local rail, bus, paratranist service?
Are the VTA BART / Silicon Valley Leadership Group ridership and revenue estimates accurate or questionable based on SCC slow economy and very low job growth due to local hitec companies aggressively outsourcing to low cost states and countries?
What happens if the VTA BART/SVLG estimates fall short to the VTA finances abd service levels?
Why did VTA select BART rather than a comprehensive standard county wide rail system where the rail track width and electrical systems are connected together BART is a old custom built / more costly non standard rail / electrical system that can not physically connect to other rail tracks and requires multiple delay prone transfers between different rail systems types?
Ok, so greg perry doesn’t want BART. Fine. But let’s be real with the numbers. Some politicians like him may not want BART, there is a reason why we lowly VOTERS want BART – it actually works! I checked the BART data. It carries more than 300,000 riders every workday. Caltrain, which I like, only caries 30,000. BART would come to Santa Clara County from the east bay down 680 and 880, where a lot of workers like me live. The whole point is to connect BART and Caltrain in Santa Clara, so that we finally link our region with rail service. I would prefer it to be BART around the bay, but this is a huge step in the right direction. I voted YES in 2000 for BART, and I will vote YES in June for more transit improvements!
Greg,
The obstacles to BART are very leapable as long as folks work together towards that goal. In fact, our Valley has a history of taking on new challenges and succeeding. BART will be no different.
Please join those working to make Silicon Valley a great place and start being a constructive force for change.
I’m looking forward to BART in my lifetime!
In true San Jose Inside style, we’re starting early with the negativity—one of the main reasons I don’t frequent this blog very often anymore.
Greg- In answer to your question, the benefits of a successful mass transit system are not only felt by those who ride it or use that commute corridor.
We need to think more like a region and recognize the benefits on our economy of BART and public transit in general.
I just read Greg Perry’s piece against BART, and the only word that comes to mind is “Disingenuous.”
Perry has spent the last two years doing everything he can to block BART from ever coming to Santa Clara County, and then tries to write a piece stating he doesn’t really have anything against BART – but that it is just too hard.
Greg, in Silicon Valley, we overcome obstacles, we don’t whine about the hard work. Or even worse in your case, serve as the person actualy putting up obstacles.
If you spent even half the time actually trying to make BART happen that you have spent trying to block it, we might make even more progress.
But lets address at least two of Perry’s “obstacles.” He whines that state funds aren’t assured. From what I understand, we need about $700 million from the state for their share. When Davis was Governor, he came through with a one-year allocation of about $30 million. When Arnold became Governor, everyone held their breath about whether he would fund any transit anywhere. But in his first year, he came through with almost another $20 million. His bond plan, and Senate President Perata’s version as well, would secure the rest of the funds for the state’s share by permanently protecting and backfilling the Prop 42 gas tax funds. If they don’t get their act together and get something on the ballot, the folks who passed Prop 42 to begin with are already circulating petitions to put it on the ballot themselves in November, and its polling off the charts.
On the federal side, it is tricky being a blue state with a red President, but that is not forever. From what I can tell, Congressman Honda has done a great job in both the House and Senate and with Republicans and Democrats about how important BART is to the region. Feinstein has done a great job as well. The problem has been with the Administration. They want to see “cost per rider” numbers around $28. The paper reported that the new VTA leader Michael Burns has already trimmed the numbers from about $42 to $32 – great progress, but still work to do.
The key lesson is simple – nothing is assured in life. Usually in this region, we create our destiny by hard work and ingenuity. We don’t throw up our hands because it is too hard.
Greg, although you don’t focus on it here, you keep saying that VTA is doing a crappy job. But the Mercury just ran a story saying it built more than a dozen highway and light rail projects funded by the last tax measure and did it all within budget and on time. I haven’t heard of many public agencies that can boast that kind of track record. Surely Caltrans can’t. And we know BART can’t. Of the public agencies we have to choose from, I’m glad VTA will build the BART extension,
I don’t understand why the gauge of the railroad makes any difference. You can’t have BART trains mixing it up with Cal Train on the same track anyway so no matter what system hooks up with what other one, there’s going to be a need for riders to step onto a platform and make a switch. The only way to eliminate that is to run BART entirely around the bay, and we all know that’s not going to happen even in our grandkids’ lifetimes.
My biggest fear about BART to SJ is that it will turn into a huge money pit. Just look south to LA’s subway system and the expensive and time consuming surprises that were encountered when digging some of those tunnels. We’ve got a fairly high ground water level in this valley and lots of springs that go un-noticed until a wet year like the one we’re having. Things like that need to be considered when figuring out the construction budget.
Much as I’d like the convenience of BART, and I drove to Fremont and used it to get to Oakland when I had that commute about 10 years ago—there is no other way to go if you ask me—I am scared of the cost and I know it’s going to come out of my wallet. Even spending caps and associated assurances wouldn’t convince me to support it because once you’ve started something like this, you’ve got no choice but to finish it. It’s going to be a tough sell.
Mulcahy’s web site says:
Mulcahy will tackle the traffic mess with proven solutions because he knows we need relief now, not twenty years from now. He will bring BART to San Jose. But he will also work to upgrade transit lines that will make a difference now.
Just curious how he plans to do this.
To Tony d.-
My point, way up at the top, is that this tax will not bring you BART. The finances just don’t work out.
You do make a good point that trains in urban areas should be grade separated with plenty of pedestrian crossings. It is expensive, but worth it.
In fact, the need to grade separate Caltrain and ACE is part of why I don’t want to spend every penny on BART, but that’s another story.
(for reference, VTA estimates 400 million dollars to grade separate Palo Alto to Tamien. Many think the cost will be considerably higher than that.)
Dan 78, you’re wrong. There are several places where light rail trains and freight trains use the same tracks, notable San Diego. Nobody knows this because the FRA requires “temporal seperation” i.e. freight runs at night when light rail is shut down.
And Tony d 79, don’t blame Caltrain [or Metrolink] when some dip-shit commits suicide by jumping in front of a train. You can always upgrade the caltrain line by grade seperation but not if all of your money is earmarked for BART.
Greg is right-Caltrain should be grade seperated but it’s expensive to do it all at once. San Carlos and Belmont did it a few years ago.
Mark T You’re right about the overhead rubbing device. The concept here and in San Francisco is the same only San Francisco uses a wheel up there instead of a rubbing device. San Francisco has both street-cars (trolleys) and electric busses (trolleys). There are advantages and disadvantages about both kinds. I won’t get into the discussion about them as it would not change anything. We have light rail (trolleys, street-cars) in place and diesel and hydrogen powered busses. I won’t argue which is better because they both serve a purpose. One thing is for sure. There is a lack of regularly scheduled public transportation from San Jose into the East Bay area. It is almost non-existant. There is limited scheduled public transportation to San Francisco. Is BART the answer? I won’t argue the point. I won’t vote in favor of Measure A because it is underhanded.
Wow, 76 posts and counting…
Thanks, SJI for doing what the Commonwealth Club and Mineta Transportation Institute’s so-called “forum” would not do: allowing Greg Perry to state his point of view.
Why is the pro-BART side so afraid of alternative viewpoints?
Mark T – Man, you nailed it. Those “light rail” trains are trolleys! So what’s wrong with calling them trolleys? Trolleys are cool. “Light rail trains” sound like an industrial nightmare. What genius thought that up?
To #79 (Tony D.)
As with any rail system, BART has its shares of suicides also…
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/28000
Something you didn’t hear in the Merc and other Valley media and definitely not from VTA/SVLG: Caltrain has the nation’s highest ridership amongst commuter rail systems, as told by yesterday’s San Ffrancisco Chronicle:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/29835
That article also includes some independent analysis on why Caltrain – and other successful, cost-effective mass transit in the San Francisco Bay Area – is highly discouraged at the regional level. What controls transit and highway funding in the entire Bay Area is a little-known agency known as MTC – the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
The Valley’s representation on the MTC includes former Santa Clara City Councilmember John McLemore, who currently serves as the Vice Chair on the MTC Commissioners. The Valley is also represented by Supervisor Jim Beall.
tony d. #79,
“CALTRAIN KILLED TWO MORE PEOPLE YESTERDAY”???? Give me a break!
One was a suicide…the person jumped in front of the train. The second was a guy who ignored the warning signs, went into a restricted area and tried to cross the tracks…while the train was barreling down on him. I think Mr. Darwin had something to say on that subject.
BART has also had it’s share of third rail suicides and other ugly incidents. Unless they build BART trains out of Nerf and power them with idiot-proof psychic energy, it’s going to happen.
To #79 (Tony D.)
It is extremely insensitive to say as if the crew and the passengers onboard the train kill someone like a serial killer. The fact is that these individuals willfully went onto the train’s path and die as a result. The victims are actually the train crew and the passengers who are forced to witness them.
None of the incidents yesterday occurred at grade crossings. So the same type of incidents could happen on BART and light rail. The only suicide proof system is the Airtrain at the San Francisco Airport, which is all elevated and has platform doors.
If Tony D. really cares about safety, why does he supports more funding to BART that would effectively deny funding to Caltrain to grade separate? Or he is just another SVLG friends taking another opportunity to bash Caltrain to support Measure A.
Eugene: You meant to say Caltrain had the highest ridership GROWTH among commuter [regional] rail systems. Obviously Long Island Rail Road, Metro North, NJT and Metra have higher TOTAL ridership because they serve larger populations. This doesn’t change the fact that some of our regional transportation priorities are out of whack or that Measure A is a bad idea.
Hugh:
Sorry about that. I just need to be a bit more careful when typing. Facts remain facts; that’s what this blog is for.
Wow, I’m getting drilled here! My first post was not a suggestion that the crews/passengers of Caltrain killed people, nor did I suggest that a toddler/babysitter killed in South San Jose were “dip shits” jumping in front of a train. Perhaps the “death” comparison was to harsh, but unfortunately, it is a reality. One of the main arguments you hear anti-BART zealots state is that “Standard commuter rail, like Caltrain, does not require an exclusive right of way, fencing or grade separation (is this supposed to be a good thing?),” thus making BART far more expensive! Like I stated previously, you get what you pay for, and BART is far safer to pedestrians/auto traffic than Caltrain (and Metrolink in the South Land). Mr. Perry, you claim that the proposed June tax won’t cover BART (the finances don’t work out)…say’s who? Are all the BART advocates in the South Bay wrong? Again, I will be voting yes come June.
I am definitely voting against any measure that earmarks dollars for CalTrain grade separations. If there is anything this country does not need, it is more idiot-proofing madness, especially on this scale.
I concur with #85 and 86. Geez, a first grade reading book will teach the lesson of stop, look, and listen to a kid even if a vacant-minded parent won’t. Those who want to throw themselves in front of a train will, period. I am not in favor of taxing the public by hundreds of millions of dollars to throw a wrench in Mr. Darwin’s machinery. Spend all those millions and the suicidal types will simply find another way and the scenarios are already limitless for the brain-cell deficient types. I do not see a grade separation project as money well spent when so many other transportation improvements that aim to put people ON trains, not in front of them, wait for funding.
Obviously Grade separation shouldn’t be done just on the grounds of safety alone, but other factors like traffic flows should be considered.
BART is not what “you get what you paid for.” Even a grade separated system or segment doesn’t cost that much. The Tasman light rail costs about $55 million a mile despite elevated tracks over a mile long. BART costs at least four times as much. BART is even more expensive than high speed rail mile per mile.
Similar to the Bay Bridge fiasco, VTA has chosen the most expensive mode, the most expensive alignment, and the most expensive construction method. Whenever they are promoting new taxes, SVLG and friends have always been saying Measure A can do XXX without additional taxes. Just like the Bay Bridge, the 2000 Measure A, and the Measure A this June, has not and won’t be their last time asking for tax hikes again. The good thing is that there’s still an opportunity to correct it.
2 choices # 28: WOW, you are to Joyce as Joyce is to Hemmingway. Buy a punctuation mark.
The biggest problem with BART from its initial stages to now is that each train stops at each station. REALLY bad idea. The “R” in the name needs to be changed from “Rapid” to “Regional” to pas the accuracy test.
Its the same thinking that brought us the downtown light rail corridor—a painfully slow transition area from the “from-nowhere-to-nowhere” light rail syatem. Then we get the new line that stops in Campbell??
Unless there is a second “express line” a-la the subways in Manhattan, the system is a huge waste of money.
Speaking of money, what if Sturges’s friends find a salamander or an exotic endangered species of rat during the EIR study? They’ll sue to stop construction, and that’ll add a couple of billion to the ultimate cost.
I don’t know anything about Mr. Perry, but he does seem a bit fanatical from reading his post. But perhaps it is with good cause. Low speed/high cost rail service (that’s BART, folks) just doesn’t make any long term sense.
Jim # 34:What do all those cities you spent time in have in common? CLUE—vertical/high density. That’s where mass transit works. Horizontal/low density that we have here: mass transit of any kind is a subsidized failure, and always will be.
We have two shining examples of why this boondoggle as currently proposed won’t work—The Big Dig and The Bay Bridge. These government clowns and the contractors they support just don’t ever get the estimates right.
Examples—every project the SJRDA financed—Convention Center, light rail,or the Shark Tank. All WAY over the ridiculoulsy low budget estimates to get the tax passed; and for light rail, ridiculously high ridership estimates, that have left us with the worst fare box-to cost ratio in the nation, if not the world.
A “trolly” is an electrified railway or busway (ala San Francisco) which gets its power with an overhead device called a “trolly” rubbing against and overhead wire. “Lightrail” is the weight of the rail used. A “lightrail” system won’t support the pounding of much heavier railroad freight cars even though the gauge (width of the space between the two rails) is the same.
I can’t wait for JohnIV’s humor tomorrow to get us all to calm down and smile. He’s always a good send-off for the weekend.
Food for thought for all you pro-Greg Perry “Let’s build something cheaper than BART” partisans…CALTRAIN KILLED TWO MORE PEOPLE YESTERDAY! Anyone know the total number of fatalities caused by the lumbering, archaic rail system? BART, with it’s exclusive right of way (fencing), has never killed a pedestrian (save for some suicidals who decided to leap in front of trains at BART stations). My point to all this; BART may cost far more than putting Caltrain-like service on every available heavy rail line around the bay…BUT YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!! I for one will be voting YES this June.
But Dan, don’t the trolleys here get their electrical power via an overhead device rubbing against an overhead wire? I don’t see what the difference is other than in SF they work the old fashioned way, sharing the street with other vehicles instead of having their own designated right-of-way complete with poorly timed traffic signals that bring multitudes of motorists to a stop so that a train carrying 2 people doesn’t have to.
Hi JohnMichael what about the Pasatiempo endangered yellow banana slugs. I understand that the Sierra Club wants to close the golf course to save those critters.
By the way, I communed with nature in the Coyote Valley yesterday.
In all seriousnessm I am against Measure A because of the underhanded way it is on the ballot. We vote on tax measures with a 2/3rds majority. We don’t just hand the County Supervisors a pile of cash to spend where they please. We need better public transportation to the East Bay and we need to improve CalTrain. The best way to start is to clean house at the Metropolitain Transportation Commission (MTC).
SJI Thank you for allowing/inviting Greg to BLOG on this topic, as I suggested months ago.
Ever since the non-debate where Greg was replaced by Ron Swiggles, it has been apparent that the BART backers with the powers that be, will go to great lengths to slander Mr. Perry, rather than debate him on facts.
Their arguements have been quite childish—-we’ll make it work——Silicon Valley is know for innovation…etc. Its easy to see who the SVLG staffers are by their posts.
IF the BART plan was as solid as the backers say, it should be able to stand up to the light of day, instead it is being ushered in the back door.
Only in SV do we have people so willing to throw money down a rat hole.
I agree with Jeffery #96. The so-called “SVLG” is waging a sneaky, underhanded campaign for BART while at the same time trying to reduce their tax burden. See article in current issue of Metro. The SVLG has no credibility. I’m against Measure A because it will add to the valley’s too-high cost of living. Vote NO.
Hugh
What all 97 of the posts I’ve read fail to consider is that the vast majority of commuters in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the Bay area want is the freedom to drive to work rather than be put on a cattle-car to nowhere.
Like the UN, our beloved VTA should be disbanded for not performing its mission. Somehow, they think that BART, an archaic albatross, should be brought to San Jose.
Newer light rail transportation could very well connect to BART stations even tho it may require a train change across platforms. Big deal. This happens all the time in most metro transit systems, especially in Europe where transit systems are much more prevalent, primarily because gasoline prices are so much higher.
The VTA has a dismal record for providing for our transportation needs. I shudder every time I see the humongous VTA busses transiting our streets spewing out the carbon monoxide while containing almost zero passengers. They could have easily gotten along with mini-busses unti such time that larger busses were required. (How much could we have saved during this period?)
For whatever reason, many decide not to pair up and use the County’s commuter lanes. Yet, the county, in making what is an obvious social statement, has decided not only to shove these lanes down our throats, but they are building special overpass lanes to accommodate the non-existing 2 passenger commuters at taxpayers expense. I find them on Rte. 85/101 and Rte. 237/880. When will it stop? We need to take our roads back from the bureaucrats; the sooner the better. We don’t need falacious surveys from our various levels of government to tell us that these programs are “meeting their goals”. We need only to look at any local TV channel in the Bay area while they are showing the morning commute. The diamond lanes are virtually empty while the others are bumper to bumper.
Let’s get rid of the “special passes” for hybrid cars as well as all diamond lanes in our county and, perhaps, the VTA as well.
As taxpayers, we deserve equal treatment for the taxes we pay.
Finally, I am totally opposed to any legislation granting ny commuters a right to but a pass in the commuter lane that I paid for with my taxes. It has to be unconstitutional to say the least.