tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64851112024-03-07T18:55:51.650-08:00The Driver's RoomCommentary about Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority from the inside.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-91036310433241550102007-08-22T18:37:00.000-07:002007-08-22T18:50:03.578-07:00Apathy"n. Want of feeling; privation of passion, emotion, or excitement; dispassion;"<br />--The Collaborative International Dictionary of English.<br /><br />"A certain apathy or sluggishness in his nature which led him... to leave events to take their own course."<br />--Prescott.<br /><br />There will be no more posts to this blog.<br /><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1170449383121270752007-02-02T12:49:00.000-08:002007-02-11T09:52:30.860-08:00Oops! Didn't Mean to Get Caught [UPDATED]A <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16591689.htm">Mercury News article</a> exposing a small bit of waste at VTA had me chuckling. Seems the nice folks at River Oaks put out a 33-page call for bakeries to bid on a contract to supply them with cake and wanted to form a five-member tasting committee to ensure high-quality. When the Mercury asked them about it Michael Burns canceled the requisition. It was cited as not being a critical "project".<br /><br />I'm surprised anyone outside VTA got wind of it. How many non-critical projects does VTA have that no one on the outside knows about? How much waste could be prevented if the public were more aware of VTA's spendthrift ways?<br /><br />Barry Witt wrote the article for the Mercury News. If you know of more instances of VTA waste, you can call him directly at (408) 920-5703 or email him at <a href="mailto:bwitt@mercurynews.com">bwitt@mercurynews.com</a>.<br /><br /><update><br />News of this is being reported as far away as Detroit in <a href="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070205/NATION/702050340/1020">The Detroit News</a>.<br /></update><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1166678293134778652006-12-20T20:48:00.000-08:002006-12-20T21:18:13.156-08:00Freedom Zero"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)"<br /><cite><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">From the Free Software Definition</a></cite><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4255/351/1600/449991/freedom.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4255/351/400/269979/freedom.png" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Here you can see a very practical way that freedom zero is implemented in SUSE Linux 10.1. The dialog above is used to add applications to your computer. Every type of application is listed. The selected program is OpenOffice.org, a free office suite.<br /><br />This dialog may be used to find, download, and install software from the Internet as well as from CD or DVD. All applications are freely available and may be used on as many computers as you like without charge. The license agreement (the GNU General Public License, or GPL) guarantees your right to do so.<br /><br />Contrast this with the way proprietary software is marketed and distributed for Windows.<br /><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1160788688168896162006-10-13T18:18:00.000-07:002006-10-13T18:18:08.173-07:00Saving Money and Building Goodwill<a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/53664.html">From LinuxInsider.com</a><br /><br />Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met is doing something few transit agencies have been able to do—wrench themselves free from proprietary software in at least one area of operations—providing timely and convenient scheduling information to their customers.<br /><br />They are partnering with Google to provide arrival times to about 300,000 commuters per month via cell phone. Lack of timely information for customers is one source of frustration for them that can be eliminated by this kind of technology. And it can help build goodwill in the community by positioning a transit agency as taking active steps to help improve customer service.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1157854404152998612006-09-09T19:13:00.000-07:002006-09-09T19:13:24.196-07:00Let the County Supervise VTA?—Think Again!<br/><a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=194387" >The Dispatch</a> <br/> <blockquote>JEERS: For the Valley Transportation Authority,<br /><br />oft-criticized for inefficiency, deservedly, and off track. The latest cause for head shaking: a $511,830 audit. That's right, $511,830 to find out why the organization is inefficient. It's the height of Shakespearean irony. Why is it that the high-priced administrators hired to run VTA can't figure out ways to operate more efficiently? If they can't, fire them, and put together a team that can. This is a taxpayer nightmare. Dissolve the VTA. Put transportation in the hands of county supervisors.</blockquote><br /><br />That was what we had when VTA was known as Santa Clara County Transit District, complete with a logo reminiscent of a snail. The supervisors running it discovered that the transit district had a surplus of money and figured they could bilk the district of its underutilized funds by inspecting the maintenance facilities and "fining" them millions of dollars for environmental "violations".<br /><br />That way they could put all that money in the general county fund and spend it any way they wanted.<br /><br />Massive cleanup operations followed, involving digging up fuel tanks on all of the fuel islands. It was great. We all had to drive our buses off site for fueling. It was nice overtime, but it was a nightmare that ultimately resulted in a law suit which ended in the formation of the current VTA Board, which consisted largely of the same people, just with new titles and a new name. Oh, and a fancy, custom-designed logo with trademark registration and all. Go figure.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1155888922089605722006-08-18T01:15:00.000-07:002006-08-18T01:22:01.593-07:00Boredom<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4255/351/1600/gimp.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4255/351/320/gimp.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />I have to admit to being bored lately with this blog. Rather than disappear entirely, I thought I would fill in some space and pass the time with a short series of posts about some of the software featured in my sidebar.<br /><br />The first one I'd like to talk about is the GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), available free from the <a href="http://www.gimp.org/">GIMP.org web site</a>. Installation of this program on Windows is, unfortunately, not as straightforward as most other programs. It is a three-step process. Each step involves clicking a setup.exe file that extracts and installs files on the computer. The first step is to install the <a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gimp-win/gtk+-2.8.18-setup-1.zip?download">GTK+ 2 Runtime Environment</a>. This is the software that provides the GIMP's graphical interface. The second step is to install the <a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gimp-win/gimp-2.2.12-i586-setup.zip?download">GIMP</a> itself. The third step is to install the <a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gimp-win/gimp-help-2-0.9-setup.zip?download">help files</a> for the gimp. All of these files are zip archives. After unzipping them you will have a setup.exe file you can run to install the component.<br /><br />After all components are installed you should have a Start menu entry for the GIMP and maybe a desktop icon. When you start the GIMP you should see something like this, except that it will look more like a Windows program than the screenshot above does.<br /><br />There is a <a href="http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/TarDist/Grokking-the-GIMP-v1.0.tar.gz">free book</a> about photo editing you can download and read as a set of web pages on your computer called Grokking the GIMP. <a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sevenzip/7z442.exe?download">7-Zip</a> can handle unpacking this file. A more recent book available from Amazon is "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590595874/sr=1-1/qid=1155886509/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8018128-5632666?ie=UTF8&s=books">Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional</a>" for $32.99 with free shipping.<br /><br />The GIMP features a wide array of plugins that automate many image adjustments and even help with image construction. There is a full set of painting tools, and standard graphics tools such as layers, masks, paths, selections, gradients, patterns, and palletes. There is a powerful add-on package for animation called the <a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/gimp-win/gimp-gap-2.2.0-setup.zip?download">GAP</a>.<br /><br />There are several Web sites devoted to the GIMP besides the main GIMP Web site.<a href="http://www.wingimp.org/"><br /></a><ul><li><a href="http://www.wingimp.org/">Win GIMP</a></li><li><a href="http://www.linuxartist.org/gimp.html">GIMP Tutorials, mailing lists, plugins, and other links</a></li><li><a href="http://gimps.de/en/tutorials/gimp/picture-photo-image/">Photo retouching</a></li><li><a href="http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php">Videos demonstrating GIMP's features</a></li><li><a href="http://www.gimptalk.com/forum/forum/Gimp-Tips-And-Tutorials-8-1.html">GIMP Talk Web Forum</a></li><li><a href="http://gug.sunsite.dk/">Gimp User Group</a><br /></li></ul>If you want a powerful application for graphics without paying Photoshop prices (or "stealing" software from your friends), the GIMP is perfect. It will never cost you a cent and offers most of Photoshop's or Paint Shop Pro's feature sets.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1151950793622952712006-07-03T11:19:00.000-07:002006-07-03T11:19:53.673-07:00Not Getting it, And How<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/14829441.htm">MercuryNews.com | 06/15/2006 | VTA approves spending plan</a><blockquote>Silicon Valley's transportation leaders on Thursday approved a 30-year spending plan that promises to deliver a 16.3-mile BART extension, everything else included in the 2000 Measure A sales tax package, and several additional programs.<br /><br />Now they need to figure out how to find another $3 billion to pay for it.</blockquote>And this is exactly how they have always conducted business... as usual. They voted 11 to 1 in favor of their plan to spend money they don't, and probably won't ever, have.<blockquote>Mountain View Councilman Greg Perry was the lone dissenter, saying after the meeting that the agency's "first step should be to get our financial house in order..."</blockquote>Guess what, Perry. They have absolutely no intention of ever doing that. In the year leading up to the June vote, VTA's board and San Jose's mayor tried to convince the public that their new tax initiative was a slam dunk, and that there would be money enough to pay for the BART extension, but only if voters approved a new tax. They tried to fool everyone into believing that their new tax was reasonable, that their failure to deliver with Measure A was not their fault (Who's fault was it?) and that they needed more money because there just wasn't enough to pay for all the things a well-run transit agency must do.<br /><br />But VTA is consistently rated among the worst agencies for cost per passenger and cost per mile. Instead of streamlining operations, making do with existing facilities and equipment (as any driver can tell you, VTA replaces old busses, rather than overhauling them, as other agencies, such as SamTrans, do), they replace buildings (North Yard), and they shuffle adminstrative personnel around while they boast about eliminating "positions" to create the appearance of cutting costs. <br /><br />They do this by maintaining ghost positions that only get filled when times are tough. They move existing employees into these ghost positions and "eliminate" those same employee's prior positions, and point to those eliminated postions as proof of their efforts to cut costs and as proof of their unbiased across-the-board cost cutting. They have to do this, because the only real positions they ever actually eliminate are their front-line workers—bus drivers and maintenance workers. Any driver who has survived a round of layoffs can tell you that whenever layoffs come, so do River Oaks administrators who's positions were eliminated on board the mother ship. They are almost always disgruntled at having to work in a grungy bus division among—GASP!—BUS DRIVERS!<br /><br />Frankly, my feeling is that they should be grateful that their employer thinks so much more highly of them than of drivers, or they would be out on the street.<br /><br />It's all a shell game to VTA's adminstrators. And until they are held to account for all of this, they will continue to pretend they are responsible custodians of public funds who just happen to have had a run of hard luck.<br /> <div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1150415289421865352006-06-15T16:48:00.000-07:002006-06-15T16:48:09.440-07:00They Just Won't Get It<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14768378.htm">MercuryNews.com | 06/08/2006 | Vote has agency pondering faith in BART's future</a> <br /> <blockquote>VTA's Burns said Tuesday's results should not lead the agency to change course. He said the board should continue forward with all its projects, hoping that either the state government will rescue the BART line through the infrastructure bond on the November ballot, or local voters will change their minds in 2008 and provide another sales tax increase.</blockquote><p>How much more clearly do the voters need to be before these assholes get it? And I'm sorry, but at this point being polite about it would just be stupid. It takes a real asshole to insist on going forward with projects when there is no funding because the voters rejected his efforts to deceive them at the polls.</p><p>It takes a real asshole to continue running the transit agency into the ground while ignoring obvious signs that it is headed for disaster.</p><p>It takes a real asshole to, in essence, flip off the public and say, "Shut up! We're going to do this MY way, and if you don't like it, bend over!"</p><p>But that is exactly what Burns and Gonzales and the SVLG are telling us. They see this as a battle to be won. And public sentiment is their opponent.</p><blockquote>Burns said he would urge the VTA to adopt a long-range spending plan next week based on the assumption of another quarter-cent sales tax to cover funding shortfalls.</blockquote><p>They're going to try it again in '08. It's like they're saying, "To hell with what the public thinks. What does the public know about running a transit agency? We're the professionals." Uh huh... you're professionals, alright. This is the biggest trick these "professionals" have tried to turn yet. Guess there just weren't enough johns around to make it work out.</p><p>But the fix they thought a new tax would buy them didn't come their way and they're hoping against hope that a bigger and better john in the form of state and federal funding will finance their next fix before the DT's hit.</p><p>Personally, I'm betting they won't get it... ever. It will take outside intervention to stop them from sucking the public dry. They won't stop until someone forces them to, which will mean disbanding VTA, privatizing the transit lines and stopping all future work on BART. But by that time it will be too late to save anyone's jobs. The drivers in that system will be able, if they are lucky, to tell stories of the good old days when there was a union and wages and benefits and the union contract gave them a sense of security. And if they are lucky, an hour of overtime will give them an extra $15 to spend... if they can get it.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1148965582545920172006-05-29T22:06:00.000-07:002006-05-29T22:06:22.553-07:00Former VTA Board Member Against Measure AIn a <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14577796.htm">Mercury News editorial</a>, David Casas lays out why Measure A is bad for the county and for VTA. What he doesn't tell us—VTA's employees—is that if it passes, many of us will likely lose our jobs as even more money is funneled away from bus, and even light rail, operations to fund a project that will benefit only local businesses intent on securing building contracts.<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1145904247513475802006-04-24T11:44:00.000-07:002006-04-24T11:44:07.520-07:00Comments Not Showing on BlogBobby commented to my previous post, and I responded, but the response does not show unless you click to add another comment, so here is the comment I posted as a response:<br /><br /><p> For me it's not about who should be mayor, but who should be<br />running VTA. If you remember, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury blasted<br />VTA's board as incompetent and recommended disbanding it entirely and<br />replacing it with an elected board of five to seven members.<br /><br />The<br />current structure of the board insulates its members from<br />accountability and favors the local agenda of San Jose over any other<br />municipality covered by the agency. In my view this makes VTA little<br />more than a political arm of San Jose's mayor, who appoints five of its<br />members.<br /><br />My post was a reference to that Grand Jury<br />recommendation to disband the VTA board. It was not about ousting Ron<br />Gonzalez from his office as mayor. As for who should be running San<br />Jose, that should be up to its voters. I only ask that VTA's board be<br />chosen in the same fashion. </p> <p class="comment-timestamp"> 6:57 PM </p><br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1144403949926842062006-04-07T02:59:00.000-07:002006-04-07T02:59:09.943-07:00Good Riddance Gonzo<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">One down... 11 to go.<br/></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1143009756777762472006-03-21T22:42:00.000-08:002006-03-21T22:42:36.823-08:00New Tax Measure--Low Entry Barrier, No Commitments<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><br/><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14149429.htm">MercuryNews.com | 03/21/2006 | Sales tax message hints at BART</a><br/><br/>The way it's written only a simple majority vote is needed to pass it and it requires no commitment by the county as to how it will be spent. And it's a tax that goes on... and on... and on... for 30 years.<br/></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1137021283032922272006-01-11T15:14:00.000-08:002006-01-11T15:18:39.353-08:00Trust and Accountability<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">On February 2nd the VTA board will decide whether to place a measure on the ballot in November to increase sales tax in order to build the BART extension to San Jose. All indications are that they will do so. In spite of numerous negative reactions from the public and politicians at the county and municipal levels, VTA's upper managers and San Jose's tainted mayor have steadfastly refused to reconsider the issue, leading many to conclude that VTA is ignoring the interests of the county as a whole in favor of one city's wishes and one project's benefit.<br /><br />As if being bullheaded were not enough, VTA seems to be fixing the numbers in their economic projections to sell the BART tax to the public, rather than deal honestly with neighboring communities and their politicians.<br /><blockquote>"To me, all of a sudden out of the hat comes these extra funds," Pinheiro said to the <a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=176652">Gilroy Dispatch</a>, "We can't hang our hat on that. It's too much 'what if.' It's almost being tailored to accommodate everybody so everybody will support it."</blockquote>The 2000 Measure A tax was sold as a package of transportation improvements to the public, but has since morphed into a build-BART-or-nothing-at-all wedge to leverage votes in favor of VTA's 2006 tax proposal. What they promised voters in 2000 they won't deliver unless voters approve a new tax in 2006. VTA's credibility is suffering because of their botched 2000 Measure A promises and implications to the press they have made since that if they don't get a new tax, that none of the Measure A promises will be kept.<br /><br />To make it more palatable to voters VTA is projecting sustained growth of 8% from 2008 to 2015. But there is no historical precedent to support that projection. In fact, VTA's average for accurately forecasting the future tax revenue of the county is nearly 0. Their projections almost always exceed real revenue by large margins. They defend their failed projections by saying that no one else could have done better, as if that justifies their record. But why should their projections be taken seriously if they cannot be relied upon as accurate?<br /><br />The county board of supervisors has delayed voting on whether to support VTA's tax proposal, pending more reliable information from VTA, in hopes of gathering a consensus from board members who are skeptical of the VTA growth rate projections which don't match past performance.<br /><blockquote>"That's why I want to hear their explanation," Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage said to the <a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=176557">Gilroy Dispatch</a>. "If you look at the overall average it looks good, but if you go back 10, 15, 20 years it doesn't. The question is, do you trust the numbers?"<br /></blockquote>VTA is doing everything it can to sidestep the inevitable. They pulled their application for federal funding—knowing it would get turned down—rather than face the embarrassing position of promoting a tax measure for a project that even the FTA knows is flawed. Now they are using the same rosy financial projections that the feds would have rejected to try to sell their plan to the voters. They are even considering giving away development rights at, or near, planned BART stations in exchange for private funding, in place of the federal grants they can't seem to hoodwink Washington out of.<br /><br />It's become a desparate situation for VTA. They have stated flatly that they <span style="font-style: italic;">will </span>build the BART extension, but now face the reality that their public and political credibility has been destroyed by their own stubbornness and arrogance. I guess they didn't count on the public seeing what VTA's employees have known for decades—that they are not trustworthy and that they cannot handle their own finances.<br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1136740031964928482006-01-08T09:07:00.000-08:002006-01-08T09:07:15.006-08:00All Bark, No Bite?<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The San Jose City Council seems to be waffling about whether to strip Ron Gonzales of his VTA appointment. Are they afraid they cannot push an agenda without him? Do they believe his shining image improves San Jose's standings with the people? Or, are they simply afraid that if they go up against him, that he will retaliate?<br/></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1135309441280572102005-12-22T19:44:00.000-08:002005-12-22T19:44:01.286-08:00Does Gonzales' Criminal Investigation Taint BART?<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=175470">SJ Mayor May Get Booted | Gilroy Dispatch</a><br/><br/>That question has to be on the minds of BART's supporters and critics alike. Other investigations have been launched into Ron Gonzales' activities before.<br/><blockquote>Mr. Gonzales has two official charges pending against him. He has been campaining for re-election using individual donations of as much as $5,000. San Jose's campaign laws limit such donations to $500 in an election year. His only response to these charges is that he needs them to push BART, using the ends to justify the means.</blockquote>That is from my own report on <a href="http://vtadriversroom.blogspot.com/2004/05/ron-gonzales-jugular-of-vta-board.html">May 11, 2004</a>. Now he is under investigation for making backroom deals with garbage collectors.<br/><br/>This cannot look good to those who wish to see BART completed. It certainly doesn't look good to those opposed to it. What other dirty little secrets is Ron Gonzales hiding?<br/><br/>Whatever they are, the San Jose City Council is trying to distance itself and perform damage control by seriously considering removing Ron Gonzales from his position on the VTA board. They should. He is bad for transportation policy in Santa Clara County.<br/><br/>How can someone involved in shady campaign financing and backroom contracts with city funds be trusted?<br/> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1134241891631033012005-12-10T11:02:00.000-08:002005-12-10T11:12:31.633-08:00VTA Stops Seeking Federal BART Funding<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13376807.htm">Setback for BART extension | Mercury News</a><blockquote>Rather than be cut by the administration, Burns decided instead to drop out first.<br /></blockquote><p>But that isn't stopping these people from forging ahead. They still believe they can fool the voters into giving them more money next year when they place their sales tax initiative on the local ballot.</p><p>What will really be interesting is to see what they do if the voters turn down the initiative. Will they listen? Or will they see it as "just another hurdle that will have to be overcome," as an unnamed spokesperson for Gonzales was quoted as saying in the article?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1133549870036458752005-12-02T10:34:00.000-08:002005-12-02T11:00:27.380-08:00"Straight" Is Not a Dirty Word<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13309527.htm">VTA delays vote on tax priorities</a><br /><br />But being straight with the voters is a problem for you isn't it:<br /><blockquote>"Don, they don't care what you think," said David Casas of Los Altos, sitting next to Gonzales but not looking at the San Jose mayor as he spoke. "They don't care what I think. I'm not sure they care what voters think." ...<br /><br />... "There is a lack of trust that is disturbing," said San Jose Vice Mayor and mayoral candidate Cindy Chavez, who will take over as VTA chairwoman next month. "If people feel duped, we have to deal with those perceptions and feelings that they have."</blockquote>The lack of trust is not what is disturbing—what <em>is</em> disturbing is that the only thing this board cares about is how they are perceived, rather than caring about doing the right thing for Santa Clara County.<br /><br />You did dupe the voters in 2000. You lied about what would happen with the tax money they voted for. You mis-managed VTA's funds so badly that the Santa Clara County Grand Jury investigated you and recomended disbanding the Board all-together!<br /><br />And you continue to pretend that it's all just a public relations problem, that if you can just communicate better to the public that everything will be alright. Well, it won't, because it isn't a public relations problem; it's a gross mis-management problem. You are the problem!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1133374618292357112005-11-30T08:45:00.000-08:002005-11-30T10:22:42.763-08:00Why I Oppose BART to San JoseI've been commenting on BART since February of last year and have been opposed to it from the start. But, I have not really explained why.<br /><br />BART is a nice system; don't get me wrong. Customers get a nice ride compared to other subway-type systems in the country.<br /><br />There are problems with implementing fixed-rail transit in a relatively young and still developing region, though, especially when the development mentality is to tear down and rebuild every few years because buildings that are ten or 20 years old are "outdated". There is no sense of permanance to anything in the Bay Area, or California for that matter. People here are hypnoticized (to quote "School of Rock") by the "new and improved".<br /><br />Business areas are demolished and replaced by malls, roads are moved, new housing is placed where open fields once spanned. Fixed-rail planners cannot predict where people will come from or go to in 20 years. Just look at the original light rail line for an example. When it was conceived, the north San Jose business park was where the growth in industry was, and the Santa Teresa area was where people wanted to live. So, naturally, planners installed light rail to cater to both.<br /><br />By the time it was complete, industrial growth had shifted to Mountain View, among other areas, and Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Tracy, and Modesto were where housing starts were popping up. Traffic planners could not keep up, and the result was daily gridlock to and from the south county, the Altamont and beyond. Planners cannot design a fixed-rail system that spans hundreds of square miles of, as yet, undeveloped land and know now where traffic will flow when it is complete.<br /><br />But my objections go beyond that. The amount of money that will be required to complete the BART project will likely be double the projections, as every BART project in the past has. That, of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing if the result is beneficial to the community. But VTA cannot convince anyone--not the federal government, the State of California, or the voters of Santa Clara County, let alone the entire VTA Board, that it is a good thing. Their ridership projections (the original, not the revised projections tailored to secure federal funding) do not justify it, and their sales tax revenues, which voters are unlikely to increase, cannot support it.<br /><br />These objections are enough, but there are more, and they are personal. VTA will have to devote enormous financial resources, not only to build it, but to operate the BART extension, once it is completed. Operating the buses, light rail, and BART will not be possible, even with additional funding from sales tax increases. VTA will not have the option of backing out of BART, and light rail is their pride and joy, so they will sacrafice bus service. And that means drivers will lose their jobs to subcontracting.<br /><br />The silence from the union about all of this is deafening. It stuns me beyond words. It makes me think they want it to turn out badly before they will claim agrieved status, as though what I outlined above were not enough of a reason. But if they wait for drivers to lose their jobs and lose their monthly dues income before speaking up, where will they get the resources to combat VTA? Right now they are in a position to prevent damage. Later they will only be able to mend wounds and console victims.<br /><br />Which would you prefer--a union that responds proactively in advance of disaster, or one that waits until the damage is irrepairable and postures itself as an advocate for the unemployed?<br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1133222729437725802005-11-28T16:05:00.000-08:002005-11-28T16:05:29.456-08:00Discontent Over BART--NOO--Ya Think?<a href="Discontent grows over plan to fund BART extension">MercuryNews.com | 11/27/2005 | Discontent grows over plan to fund BART extension</a>The Mercury acts as though this is new. I guess they can no longer pretend it isn't so and must now pretend it's a new development just so they don't look stupid.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1132889389830811792005-11-24T19:29:00.000-08:002005-11-24T19:54:29.033-08:00Funding Perspective<a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=173276">BART to SJ Gets Boost | Gilroy Dispatch</a><blockquote>Gilroy - The $4.7-billion BART to San Jose project got a $6.5-million boost this week from the federal government.</blockquote>This is a small amount of money compared to the funds needed to complete and operate the BART extension--one tenth of one percent of the figures quoted above. But BART's price tag has already proven to be a moving target, one that keeps rising higher.<br /><br />However, politics is working its magic. Behind the scenes polititians have been rewriting the rules to make it easier to approve the BART project and VTA has revised its ridership figures to make it an easer sell to the federal government.<br /><br />Anyone who can't see where this is headed has their head firmly planted up their ass. VTA can't sell this to the government on its merits, so they are manipulating the figures and changing the rules to suit their goals.<br /><br />Burns has been busy lately writing letters to editors trying to convince the public that Transit Speak really does make sense after all in the hope that he can convince enough of them to vote yes to tax themselves--again--to pay for VTA's waste.<br /><br />Without the tax in '06 VTA will have to revise its BART plans, which it should have done anyway after the economy tanked. But every slap in the face Reality delivers only steels VTA's resolve. Money may be in short supply at VTA, but stupidity is not.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1131574381738957882005-11-09T14:13:00.000-08:002005-11-09T14:26:12.056-08:00FUD Campaign Ramping Up<a href="http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=172124">The Dispatch</a>: <blockquote>Over the next month, VTA staff will continue to work in partnership with a cross-section of county elected officials, civic leaders and residents to finalize a comprehensive funding scenario that will fulfill the promises of the 2000 Measure A Program....</blockquote>The Boss is campaigning hard. The problem with his remarks, though, is that it's too late to fulfill the promises of the 2000 Measure A program. The whole reason for having another tax initiative is that VTA failed to fulfill its promises in the first place.<br /><br />So, rather than be straight with the public, he embarks on a Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt campaign. He says if we don't vote in an additional tax, that VTA won't keep its original promises, but makes it sound like a good thing by detailing all the wonderful things that will come about if it passes.<br /><br />Excuse me, but isn't that what was said about the 2000 Measure A initiative before it was voted on? Didn't VTA make promises about transit improvements and dire predictions of the consequences for failing to support it?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1130490646637756322005-10-28T01:54:00.000-07:002005-10-28T02:40:16.003-07:00The Union Is At It Again<a href="http://www.atu265.com/Docs/Oct05/2nd_2005_Proposed_ByLaws.htm">PROPOSED BY-LAW AMENDMENTS</a><br /><blockquote><br />ARTICLE IX, UNION STEWARDS, Section 5. "...For the performance of their duties, the Stewards shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."<br /><br />ARTICLE X, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, Section 8. "...For their faithful performance of their duties, Executive Board Officers shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."<br /><br />ARTICLE XII, FINANCE:<br />Section 6. "...In addition to the monthly dues, there shall be a five-dollar ($5) General Fund Assessment to pay for Arbitration expenses, mandatory audit expenses, and general office expenses..."<br /><br />Section 10. "...Any member out of work on Industrial Injury, sickness, or pregnancy, for more than thirty (30) days shall then be required to pay <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">only per capita tax</span> ½ of their Union Dues and the General Fund Assessment..."<br /><br />ARTICLE XXI, SAFETY AND HEALTH COMMITTEE, Section 8. "...For the faithful performance of their duties, Committee members shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."<br /></blockquote>They want to lessen their financial burden and unload it on the rest of us.<br /><br />They tried this earlier this year and failed to pass it. This "new" proposal is virtually identical to the previous one. Notice what it says at the beginning of the proposal:<br /><blockquote>In accordance with Article XXIII of the Local By-Laws, the following five (5) amendments to our Local By-Laws have been reviewed and approved the Local’s Executive Board during the September 27, 2005 Executive Board Session, and shall be read at the October 19, 2005 and November 16, 2005 Membership Meetings, followed by a vote of the Membership at the November 16, 2005 Membership Meeting. It shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members present to adopt such changes or amendments.</blockquote>They figure if they keep trying, that eventually there will be few enough opposing members present and it will pass.<br /><br />When was the last time they made themselves available in a meaningful way to the membership? Do they deserve a break on their dues? Send them a loud and clear message...NO!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1130269389402445572005-10-25T12:43:00.000-07:002005-10-25T13:10:32.360-07:00VTA Must Compromise, Mr. Burns<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12990592.htm">MercuryNews.com | 10/25/2005 | Making headway on transit tax</a>:<br /><blockquote>Ultimately, the final scenario that is adopted by the VTA Board will require compromise from all areas of the county.<p>I am committed to work with all of our local and county representatives to create an expenditure plan that has broad-based support and meets the county's transportation challenges.</p><p></p><address>Michael Burns, general manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority</address></blockquote><br /><p>Mr. Burns, in 2000 the voters of this county decided they wanted a nice compromise package that promised to pay for Caltrain electrification, extension of light rail to the airport, and other highway improvements. Since then this agency has unilaterally narrowed its focus to building the BART extension to the exclusion of other projects. This showed a total disregard for Santa Clara County's true transportation challenges.<br /></p> <p>Now you are telling those same voters that they need to compromise by approving another transit tax with no clear plan as to how it will be spent and without justifying reneging on VTA's promises in 2000. VTA squandered the public trust; now you want that public to trust you again.<br /></p> <p>Why should they?<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1129903279666621952005-10-21T07:01:00.000-07:002005-10-21T07:34:30.276-07:00Bickering on the Board<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/12959397.htm">MercuryNews.com | 10/21/2005 | No transit tax consensus</a><br /><p>No, not the extra board, but the board of directors:<br /></p><blockquote>In a spending plan released earlier this month, Michael Burns, general manager of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, proposed shelving the $400 million airport line and cutting 10 percent out of planned Caltrain expenditures to help cover the rising cost of the planned BART extension to Silicon Valley.<br /><br />The Burns plan relies on both the half-cent Measure A sales tax voters approved in 2000 and the additional quarter-cent tax next year. But the projected revenue from the two taxes over 30 years won't pay for everything voters were promised in 2000, plus a new road maintenance fund being proposed as a means of attracting support for the additional sales tax."</blockquote>In other words, VTA wants more money to pay for fewer services. The reality of that proposal is sinking in to the minds of city councils and board members alike as they realize that CalTrain electrification and the San Jose Airport light rail extension are on the chopping block to help pay for the BART extension.<p></p><p>This will turn into a bitter fight, and no matter what the outcome of next year's new sales tax vote, the aftermath will not be pretty. The Mercury talks about the tax initiative as though it is a slam dunk. They seem to think the voters are ignorant enough, or stupid enough, to give VTA more money after they were stiffed by VTA's backpeddling on promises for how the 2000 Measure A tax would be spent.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6485111.post-1129215865986306842005-10-13T08:04:00.000-07:002005-10-13T09:05:03.116-07:00Added Value, or Bad Business?<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12889808.htm">MercuryNews.com | 10/13/2005 | Buses are to Los Gatos as soap to cat</a><br /><br />Read this and decide for yourself if VTA is adding value by lengthening the time it takes to get to Los Gatos or if providing free rides to the affluent is attracting new, paying customers.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2677494294894661";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_type = "text";
google_ad_channel ="";
//--></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0