The Driver's Room

Apathy

2007-08-22T18:37:00.000-07:00

"n. Want of feeling; privation of passion, emotion, or excitement; dispassion;"
--The Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

"A certain apathy or sluggishness in his nature which led him... to leave events to take their own course."
--Prescott.

There will be no more posts to this blog.

Oops! Didn't Mean to Get Caught [UPDATED]

2007-02-02T12:49:00.000-08:00

A Mercury News article 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".

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?

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 bwitt@mercurynews.com.

<update>
News of this is being reported as far away as Detroit in The Detroit News.
</update>

Freedom Zero

2006-12-20T20:48:00.000-08:00

"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)"
From the Free Software Definition

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.

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.

Contrast this with the way proprietary software is marketed and distributed for Windows.

Saving Money and Building Goodwill

2006-10-13T18:18:00.000-07:00

From LinuxInsider.com

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.

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.

Let the County Supervise VTA?—Think Again!

2006-09-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch

JEERS: For the Valley Transportation Authority,

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.

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".

That way they could put all that money in the general county fund and spend it any way they wanted.

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.

Boredom

2006-08-18T01:15:00.000-07:00

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.

The first one I'd like to talk about is the GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), available free from the GIMP.org web site. 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 GTK+ 2 Runtime Environment. This is the software that provides the GIMP's graphical interface. The second step is to install the GIMP itself. The third step is to install the help files 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.

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.

There is a free book about photo editing you can download and read as a set of web pages on your computer called Grokking the GIMP. 7-Zip can handle unpacking this file. A more recent book available from Amazon is "Beginning GIMP: From Novice to Professional" for $32.99 with free shipping.

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 GAP.

There are several Web sites devoted to the GIMP besides the main GIMP Web site.

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.

Not Getting it, And How

2006-07-03T11:19:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/15/2006 | VTA approves spending plan

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.

Now they need to figure out how to find another $3 billion to pay for it.

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.

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..."

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

They Just Won't Get It

2006-06-15T16:48:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/08/2006 | Vote has agency pondering faith in BART's future

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.

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.

It takes a real asshole to continue running the transit agency into the ground while ignoring obvious signs that it is headed for disaster.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Former VTA Board Member Against Measure A

2006-05-29T22:06:00.000-07:00

In a Mercury News editorial, 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.

Comments Not Showing on Blog

2006-04-24T11:44:00.000-07:00

Bobby 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:

For me it's not about who should be mayor, but who should be
running VTA. If you remember, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury blasted
VTA's board as incompetent and recommended disbanding it entirely and
replacing it with an elected board of five to seven members.

The
current structure of the board insulates its members from
accountability and favors the local agenda of San Jose over any other
municipality covered by the agency. In my view this makes VTA little
more than a political arm of San Jose's mayor, who appoints five of its
members.

My post was a reference to that Grand Jury
recommendation to disband the VTA board. It was not about ousting Ron
Gonzalez from his office as mayor. As for who should be running San
Jose, that should be up to its voters. I only ask that VTA's board be
chosen in the same fashion.

6:57 PM

Good Riddance Gonzo

2006-04-07T02:59:00.000-07:00

One down... 11 to go.

New Tax Measure--Low Entry Barrier, No Commitments

2006-03-21T22:42:00.000-08:00

MercuryNews.com | 03/21/2006 | Sales tax message hints at BART

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.

Trust and Accountability

2006-01-11T15:14:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

"To me, all of a sudden out of the hat comes these extra funds," Pinheiro said to the Gilroy Dispatch, "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."

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.

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?

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.

"That's why I want to hear their explanation," Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage said to the Gilroy Dispatch. "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?"

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.

It's become a desparate situation for VTA. They have stated flatly that they will 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.

All Bark, No Bite?

2006-01-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

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?

Does Gonzales' Criminal Investigation Taint BART?

2005-12-22T19:44:00.000-08:00

SJ Mayor May Get Booted | Gilroy Dispatch

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.

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.

That is from my own report on May 11, 2004. Now he is under investigation for making backroom deals with garbage collectors.

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?

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.

How can someone involved in shady campaign financing and backroom contracts with city funds be trusted?

VTA Stops Seeking Federal BART Funding

2005-12-10T11:02:00.000-08:00

Setback for BART extension | Mercury News

Rather than be cut by the administration, Burns decided instead to drop out first.

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.

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?

"Straight" Is Not a Dirty Word

2005-12-02T10:34:00.000-08:00

VTA delays vote on tax priorities

But being straight with the voters is a problem for you isn't it:

"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." ...

... "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."

The lack of trust is not what is disturbing—what is 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.

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!

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!

Why I Oppose BART to San Jose

2005-11-30T08:45:00.000-08:00

I'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.

BART is a nice system; don't get me wrong. Customers get a nice ride compared to other subway-type systems in the country.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Discontent Over BART--NOO--Ya Think?

2005-11-28T16:05:00.000-08:00

MercuryNews.com | 11/27/2005 | Discontent grows over plan to fund BART extensionThe 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.

Funding Perspective

2005-11-24T19:29:00.000-08:00

BART to SJ Gets Boost | Gilroy Dispatch

Gilroy - The $4.7-billion BART to San Jose project got a $6.5-million boost this week from the federal government.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FUD Campaign Ramping Up

2005-11-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

The Dispatch:

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....

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.

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.

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?

The Union Is At It Again

2005-10-28T01:54:00.000-07:00

PROPOSED BY-LAW AMENDMENTS

ARTICLE IX, UNION STEWARDS, Section 5. "...For the performance of their duties, the Stewards shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."

ARTICLE X, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, Section 8. "...For their faithful performance of their duties, Executive Board Officers shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."

ARTICLE XII, FINANCE:
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..."

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 only per capita tax ½ of their Union Dues and the General Fund Assessment..."

ARTICLE XXI, SAFETY AND HEALTH COMMITTEE, Section 8. "...For the faithful performance of their duties, Committee members shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."

They want to lessen their financial burden and unload it on the rest of us.

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:

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.

They figure if they keep trying, that eventually there will be few enough opposing members present and it will pass.

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!

VTA Must Compromise, Mr. Burns

2005-10-25T12:43:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 10/25/2005 | Making headway on transit tax:

Ultimately, the final scenario that is adopted by the VTA Board will require compromise from all areas of the county.
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.
Michael Burns, general manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

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.

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.

Why should they?

Bickering on the Board

2005-10-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 10/21/2005 | No transit tax consensus

No, not the extra board, but the board of directors:

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.

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."

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.

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.

Added Value, or Bad Business?

2005-10-13T08:04:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 10/13/2005 | Buses are to Los Gatos as soap to cat

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.

Gilroy Dispatch Editorial Sums Up BART/SJ Problems

2005-10-11T22:33:00.000-07:00

This editorial is worth a read.

Reality Sets In?

2005-09-30T07:18:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 09/30/2005 | Tough transit times ahead:

"To say we are at a crossroads is accurate,'' said Joe Pirzynski, chairman of the 12-member [VTA] board. "There are tough decisions ahead.''

Extend light rail down Capitol Avenue to Eastridge? With a new tax, construction could be completed in five or six years. Without a new tax, never mind.

Run trolleys down Capitol Expressway to Highway 101, and along Winchester Boulevard to Vasona Park? Even with a new tax, it could be three decades before money would be freed up for that.

The worries extend up the Peninsula. A plan to run commuter trains across the old Dumbarton railroad bridge could be pushed back to 2023 instead of 2011. Electrify Caltrain? Who knows when.

VTA is desperate. The tax approved by voters in 2000 will not pay for the projects they promised it would. In the run-up to the 2000 vote VTA promoted the new tax on the basis that it was necessary in order to fund these projects. Now they are saying the same thing in the run-up to the 2006 vote, saying that without a new tax, the same projects that have not been started, but were promised with the 2000 tax, will not be possible.

VTA's focus in discussing these matters with the public is light rail and BART. Both are very visible even when no trains are on the track; it is easy for anyone casually observing to see that, yes, there is a transit system serving this area. What they push to the side in their discussions is bus service. It takes a little more effort for casual observers to notice when an area is served by buses, because there is no track dedicated to buses and few large stations dedicated to them. Mostly, there are inconspicuous bus stops consisting of a sign, a bench which is sometimes inside a shelter, and a (badly placed) trash can.

They speak as if without light rail or BART that there is no service. Unfortunately, what happens is quite different. Light rail lines are planned decades in advance of construction, when traffic follows paths from congested residential areas to busy industrial and business areas. Over time, what was an undeveloped area fills up with housing or commercial buildings, changing traffic patterns in the process. What looked good on paper in the planning process ends up being a static, monolithic system that cannot adapt to the changes.

Bus service, on the other hand, is easily adapted to such changes. How many times have established routes been redesigned or even temporarily rerouted? The 25 and 85 through Valley Medical Center is a perfect example. They have both been rerouted through there so many times, for different reasons, that it is difficult to tell when a particular route is temporary or "permanent". Or how about the 180? There are standard reroutes just for traffic conjestion.

This is accomplished by simply moving bus stop signs or placing temporary signs where necessary. But in the minds of VTA board members this kind of flexible service does not count. Unless there is a multi-million dollar rail line cutting through their particular area that carries multi-million dollar trains, there is no service as far as they are concerned.

And that is the only thing that matters to them--the money. If Campbell gets its own rail line, then, by God, east San Jose is going to have one, too. It's an ego thing. "Hey, look at my neighborhood. It has light rail. It's big. It's important!" Perhaps. But it is also grossly overpriced for the level of service delivered.

Without federal funds for the BART extension, VTA will have a hard time producing high-visibility evidence that they are fulfilling their mission. Unless they can bamboozle the public again in 2006, and convince the federal government that their newly revised BART ridership projections are more accurate than their original one was, they will be forced to concede that high-cost, inflexible rail lines do not serve the public as well as comparatively low-cost bus service can in a growing area.

But for now, at least, they continue pretending that BART and light rail are the only meaningful answers.

How Convenient

2005-09-28T16:08:00.000-07:00

VTA recently increased its projected ridership figures for the BART extension by about 33%. It seems the only way they will ever see money from the Federal Government is if they can make it look to them as though it is worth funding.

What a crock!

Nice Try

2005-07-12T21:33:00.000-07:00

San Jose Business Journal | Budget compromise breathes new life into BART funding | 2005-07-11:

The full transportation funding was a big issue for Silicon Valley businesses, which have been vocal in supporting the $4 billion extension of BART to San Jose. Santa Clara County taxpayers will pay for much of the project themselves, but the project also needs $649 million promised by then-governor Gray Davis in 2000.

The VTA is asking for $170 million this year. But the VTA will be competing with 140 other projects for the $678 million in traffic congestion relief funds....

Look carefully at the new life the San Jose Business Journal (BJ) is claiming for the BART project. Under Gray Davis the project was to get nearly $650 million. Now they must compete with 140 other projects for a collective pool of $678 million. Divided evenly between all of them that works out to $4.8 million for the BART extension to San Jose. That is less than 1% of the originally promised state funding.

Even if BART gets all of it, there is still the problem of the lack of federal funding the tax payers were promised would make up the difference between local sales tax, state funding and the true cost of the extension, now estimated by Cipola at $5 billion.

But let's be realistic. The state cannot get away with putting all of its transportation funds into one project--or even two. It will have to help fund a variety of projects, which will reduce significantly what it can contribute to the BART extension.

As positive as the BJ wants to be about the BART project, this just is not enough to save the ill-conceived BART extension.

VTA's 25 Year Plan MIA

2005-07-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

Update: Eugene Bradley of the VTA Rider's Union pointed me to the new location for the 2030 plan. The blogroll has been updated with the new link location. Thanks Eugene.

--

VTA recently removed its 2030 Plan site from the Internet. This site was devoted to selling the public on its long range rosey plans for BART and other projects it secretly knows it cannot deliver.

In light of recent events--lack of projected economic recovery, lack of federal and state support for BART, lack of public support for yet another sales tax hike--it is understandable that they would not want something so obviously embarrassing to them to continue to give critics a reason to laugh.

Security Forces

2005-07-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

San Francisco Chronicle | Can they be stopped?:

The VTA has installed digital closed-circuit cameras and satellite tracking devices on more than 300 buses, allowing security forces to quickly respond if a driver radios for help. The VTA also plans to install digital cameras on 80 light-rail cars.

The agency also has a pilot project testing a live 'video-on-demand' system in heavily trafficked light-rail and bus stations, allowing security command workers to constantly scout for potential problems, said Raymond Frank, the VTA's security chief.

I love how these journalists choose their words when describing sheriff's deputies. In the context of international terrorist activity they become Security Forces. Images of at-the-ready military units springing into action come to mind.

Okey dokey.

These are the same Security Forces that can take as long as two hours to respond to incidents of violence on board buses. They are the same ones that, in spite of the GPS tracking system, find it hard to locate buses that aren't moving. That's if the Orbital radio system that was supposed to solve all of VTA's field communication problems happens to be working. How often does it go down? Does it surprise anyone anymore when it does?

These professionals are on the move, ready for anything. And they are there to help. Yah, right! They are good after-the-fact evidence gatherers, arriving only when the dust settles, questioning the veracity of events as described by the driver. They excel at identifying graffiti "artists", at tracking down vandals and making sure everyone knows they are in charge.

These are the anti-terrorist Security Forces that Ray Frank calls Security Command Workers. Give me a break!

VTA Defies Grand Jury

2005-07-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch | Report shows Grand Jury recommendations implemented

Of the 75 recommendations, 36 had already been adopted and agencies promised to adopt another 14. Sixteen of the recommendations were rejected, including major changes to the board of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which disagreed with all of the findings of the jury’s controversial report.

Like we couldn't see that coming! VTA operates not only in defiance of the Grand Jury, but defies reality.

It comes as no surprise that the apostles comprising the board feel it is too much to give up the power they have over the funds VTA receives. The financial benefits of improving San Jose's big city image by bringing BART to San Jose are too enticing. So are the political advantages of having business support for the future ambitions of its members.

The blindness to upward spiraling costs this creates when their rigidity forces them to spend billions of dollars on a BART extension that benefits only them has left Santa Clara County with a transportation system that will continue declining. VTA will be bilked of hundreds of millions of dollars and its work force screwed again, simply for political ambition and improved public perception.

Is BART a Good Deal?

2005-06-20T13:23:00.000-07:00

San Jose Business Journal | Shedding one San Jose BART station seen as compromise - 2005-06-20:

...[T]he Valley Transportation Authority is looking for ways to come up with $1 billion through a combination of taxes and cost cutting.

They'd better, because if past experience is any indicator, the annual cost of building the BART extension by 2016 will be just about $1 billion. They still think the voters will approve their tax plan. Or, at least, they try to convince the public that that is the case. They are hurriedly scrambling around Sacramento trying to convince legislators to give up more money for BART as a means of bolstering public confidence for the upcoming 2006 tax initiative.

State funding would help voters stay with us and it would help us obtain additional funding from Congress.

But there is little blood to squeeze from that turnip. And the federal government knows the project will not ease traffic congestion, so they aren't going to touch it.

VTA is the ace of spades up the sleeve of Ron Gonzales and he wants to play it as a means of furthering his own political career. He can do that if he scratches the backs of his business buddies in San Jose, who see BART as a way to attract new customers. The city also sees it as a way to attract new business to the area. Thus more tax revenues for the city.

But there are victims here, which include tax payers, commuters and transit workers. The tax payers will suffer by paying for something they will not be able to use for ten years, if ever. Commuters will suffer because projects being sacraficed now to pay for BART will not be completed. And transit workers, who's livelihoods depend on the good will and good sense of the VTA board, will suffer when their jobs are eliminated to make way for the all-important BART extension--a project that will cost double its original budget, a project that will provide zero traffic relief, a project with no financial backing whatsoever.

Does that sound like a good deal to you?

Sacrifices and Service Cuts

2005-06-17T20:40:00.000-07:00

Gilroy Dispatch | Up sales tax for BART:

[Don] Gage... said he doesn’t believe voters will pass a sales-tax measure. And if they do, he said, the money will barely maintain VTA’s status quo.
“Without it, we might be looking at 20 percent service cuts,” he said.

So far, VTA's board is in favor of Gonzales' proposal to move ahead with BART despite having no major sources of funding. He wants to sacrifice service and other projects, such as CalTrain electrification, to reduce the burden of paying for it.

But the difference between what can be saved through sacrifice and the total cost of the project, now projected to be $5 billion by Cipola, is immense. Gonzales is hoping to trim a hundred million here and a hundred million there without any thought to the likelihood that voters will turn down another sales tax hike, which would bring in perhaps $80 million per year.

With a 20% reduction in service how many will be laid off... again? Some have already been laid off twice. If Gonzales gets his way and the board continues denying reality, many more will be laid off in this third round. And VTA may never recover.

Another VTA Blog

2005-06-14T11:45:00.000-07:00

VTA Watch: The 2006 Measure A sales tax campaign starts now

The most recent post on this blog underscores how disconnected from reality Ron Gonzales and the VTA board are and how much damage to the transportation infrastructure will be done by their blind determination to build BART at any cost.

Letter to "The [Gilroy] Dispatch" Editor

2005-06-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

There is an alternative to BART and strongarm tactics of Ron Gonzales

Public perception quite correctly characterizes Ron Gonzales' tactics in favor of BART as "strong-arm".

BART or Bust

2005-06-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/11/2005 | S.J. lawmaker predicts support for transit tax hike:

"People in our community are so anxious to have BART and traffic relief, and really believe that Silicon Valley is worth being a part of and saving, that I think we're going to get the support we need for a quarter-cent sales tax if we do that in fall 2006"

San Jose Councilwoman Cindy Chavez believes the very existence of Silicon Valley depends on building BART. Since when has BART had anything to do with the success of the high-tech industry here?

This isn't about the existence of Silicon Valley; its about the image of San Jose in the eyes of potential business newcomers.

Let's review some of the facts:

VTA needs $2.6 billion from Measure A to fund the BART extension.
That fact assumes that the cost of building it, currently estimated at $4.2 billion, will not rise, an assumption that has proven ridiculous in every single instance in the past, and on the assumption that the federal government is willing to fill in the funding gap, which brings us to point two:

VTA's financial outlook is not good, which is one of the reasons the federal government is unwilling to fund it. The other reason they are unwilling to fund it is

The proposed BART extension is projected to have low ridership, and thus, will provide almost zero traffic relief.

One of the supposed benefits of having BART extended to San Jose is "every community within the South Bay would have direct access through another mode of transit to one of the BART stations." That is something that exists now even without the extension. VTA provides direct access to the Fremont station by way of the 180 express. This really is not a new benefit.

The real motive behind building the BART extension and the real beneficiary of its building is summed up in a statement by Jim Cunneen: "[M]any of us strongly believe that we need to create an authentic urban living and work environment in our downtown," meaning downtown San Jose. It is San Jose, and only San Jose, that will benefit by it. And it has nothing to do with traffic relief, but rather, it is being built to create the perception that San Jose is a bigger city than it is.

Why would that be so important? It is important because it can serve to attract business here, not to Silicon Valley. It is not about traffic relief. It is not about saving Silicon Valley. It is about San Jose's image. Period.

And when the federal funds needed to complete the project fail to materialize, these BART zealots will cut bus service, meaning lay you off, in order to gain the benefits for San Jose that Mr. Cunneen succinctly summarized.

Gonzales Panicing

2005-06-11T01:42:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch:

"San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales wants the staff of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to draw up a new capital improvement plan and find more money to bring BART to San Jose.

In a memo distributed to his fellow VTA board members, Gonzales urged his colleagues to direct staff to formulate a plan that assumes a new sales tax...."

Gonzales says VTA can trim as much as $1 billion from its budget to devote to BART. Wow! Where is that money hiding? He suggests that it can be squeezed out by reworking current plans for BART and other projects.

This verifies the findings of the Santa Clara County grand jury report more than a year ago, which stated that VTA was grossly inefficient and needed a complete overhaul. But Gonzales has other plans. He wants his BART extension no matter what and believes that enough positive thinking on the part of VTA's employees will materialize in the form of a voter-apporved tax increase in 2006.

But he also knows that at the end of the year he will lose majority support for the extension into San Jose, because two of his BART supporters on the board will be replaced by less enthusiastic members from cities unlikely to benefit from BART. He is in a hurry to get the board to make an intractable commitment now before that happens.

The Inevitability of BART

2005-06-10T01:03:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/09/2005 | Gonzales backs added transit tax:

"It's not just BART that's at stake here," Livengood said. "There's a number of other projects and roadways that we need to get completed. We as a VTA board owe it to the voters to give them the chance to vote on a quarter-cent sales tax, and they'll make the decision whether it passes or not."

Santa Clara representative Jamie Matthews agreed.

"It's a good idea. We have a mature, educated and informed constituency, and when presented with the facts they vote time and time again to fill the gap and to complete our transportation systems," Matthews said. "In order for us to operate BART long term it appears the data indicates a sales tax is necessary."

Listening to these pinheads reminds me of Smith -- Agent Smith, in The Matrix. When holding Neo down on the subway tracks he says into Neo's ear, "Do you hear that sound, Mr. Anderson? It's the sound of inevitability. It's the sound of your death."

Neo was unwilling to accept the assumptions inundating his senses from a world built on lies. The only way those lies were believable was to build more lies on top of more lies. He was able to overcome them by simply questioning them and their source. Listen to the words used by these board members. "In order for us to operate BART long term... a sales tax is necessary."

Operate BART? Who said we have to push ahead to build a BART extension? With What money? And WE are going to operate it WHEN it is built? There is another assumption being inserted that is more subtle. These people want you to believe that if BART is not funded, that nothing else will get built either, as though funding for road and other transit projects is intimately tied to funding for BART.

First of all, there is no agreement on the feasability or the necessity of building BART. And there certainly is no agreement that the funds voted for in 2000 were only to be used for BART. Secondly, Gonzales admits in this article that we can't afford to build it. Why, then, do these idiots keep pushing for it? If they would just let it go, there would suddenly be much more flexibility for planning many more projects that have a far greater chance of making a real difference for transportation in Santa Clara County.

These people are trying to make you believe that there is no alternative to building BART and that since it WILL be built, you'd better vote to fork over more money right now. And they are doing you a favor by giving you the opportunity to vote "Yes" on it.

I hear a sound. It is a resounding NO! And it it is the sound of BART's inevitable death.

Apathy Is the Membership's Common Bond

2005-06-09T20:42:00.000-07:00

The Driver's Room Forum - AVOID A MAJOR 'WEDGIE' -- GET INVOLVED!:

It continues to amaze me that there is no input from the membership here. I'm not alone in my thinking:

"Where is everybody?
Without the official Union newsletter as an avenue for any member's opinions and questions, one would think this Website would be HUMMING with activity. Many kudos to Penguiniator for slugging it out alone, doing the research, probably paying the fee(s) for this Website, etc. I know exactly what it's like, having sometimes supplied every word that appeared in some issues of Route 265 years ago.
I fear I am seeing the membership sinking into a deep hibernation, while its leadership confines its activities to reaction (grievance-handling) instead of proaction. It is conceivable that the Union will eventually be seen as irrelevant to the majority of its members. That's when VTA management might try to drive a fatal wedge you-know-where; i.e., try to get the union decertified. Then what?
Hello? Hello-o-o-o-o? Anyone there?"

Richard Lofsted Badge 291

I got the idea for this web site from another driver and thought, "Wow, that could really be something great!" I started it wondering how I could get the word out, advertising on Google, making flyers and surrepticiously surfing to the site using the computers in the driver's rooms at each yard and simply leaving the front page on screen and walking away to let others discover it on their own. It has not been entirely ignored; several people at VTA read it regularly, as my server logs indicate, and it has been quoted and linked to from other sites.

But the original vision--supplying a place for drivers to sound off and stay updated on issues important to all drivers--has not materialized. Perhaps Richard is right. Maybe the membership has sunk into a deep hibernation. What will it take to rouse them from their slumber? I'm unsure if I can supply the right kind of smelling salts to wake them.

Perhaps it will take a direct threat to their individual jobs to motivate them to band together in any real way. Maybe not even then.

No Common Sense at VTA

2005-06-08T17:41:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch:

We single out the VTA for two good reasons: The scathing grand jury report on its inefficient operations and the dogged pursuit, whipped on by the misguided Silicon Valley Leadership Group, of bringing BART to San Jose no matter the cost.

It seems clear that VTA and Ron Gonzales are determined to build it, even though all the evidence says commuters will not come even if they do. The board hired a man willing to say yes to whatever Gonzales wants. And why not -- he's getting paid a pretty penny to do so! How long will it take VTA to either decide to become BART's south bay area arm or to give up the fantasy and face the reality of having to really streamline its operations by making real cuts in administration, where it has been blasted for inefficiency, and focus on fulfilling its charter.

Is Burns' Divining Rod Better Than Cipola's?

2005-06-03T12:03:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/02/2005 | VTA approves new chief, projects budget surplus: "Burns probably will be measured on two fronts -- his ability to deliver BART and lure back bus riders, who have sagged from around 150,000 to 105,000 a day, the lowest in more than two decades.

But the local sales tax, which makes up 80 percent of the agency's operating fund, is beginning to inch upward, from $132 million in 2003 to a projected $181 million in 2010."

Remember the tailgate meetings Cipola led just before the first layoffs, the ones where he was taken to task for continuing to hire new drivers long after most big companies in the area began laying off workers? His response then was that there was no way he could have known what was coming. He continued operating VTA as if ever increasing sales tax funds would continue to flow his way.

The current players now are predicting a $50 million increase by 2010. Have they learned anything from the error of their ways? I don't want to cast a long shadow over the jubilent celebration the board is having over hiring Muni's Big Boss, but can we really afford to operate as if we know what the future holds? I certainly hope their predictions come true, but please--don't act as though the future economic health of VTA is a positive certainty.

New Boss Hits VTA

2005-06-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/02/2005 | Muni boss bound for VTA: "Burns, 49, took over the San Francisco transit agency six years ago, coming to the Bay Area from Philadelphia where he was the No. 2 man of that transit system and where he reportedly developed a relationship as being tough on labor issues. [italics are mine]"

Get ready, because the good times are definitely not rolling at VTA.

Michael Burns will get $290,000 a year, about $67,000 more than Cipola was paid. That difference would pay an hourly employee $32.21 an hour with a 40 hour guarantee. The Merc says he has "a relationship as being tough on labor issues." Seems to me they should have used the word reputation, but who am I to nit pick their wording. The point is that the union had better be ready for some tough negotiating at a time when they have already shown themselves to be soft.

This guy is a yes man when it comes to BART. There will be no internal struggle over major policy decisions and it will cost many their jobs. VTA will be seeking to reduce front line workers again while protecting their overbloated administration, as they always have. There will be more talk from them of cutting administrative "positions" as they shuffle actual administrators into "vacant positions". The result when you go into the front office will be new and unhappy faces.

Meanwhile, there will be more fare hikes that will result in fewer riders and declining farebox revenues as the new Boss smiles his way through Sacramento and Washington greasing the wheels that fund big budget, high visibility projects like BART. His mission is to create a Brave New World of speedy, comfortable transportation that takes into consideration the regional needs of commuters. (Wow, they should hire me to write their propaganda!)

But first, the new Boss has to introduce himself to his newly acquired drudges. Of course, he will also need to bring in his Cronies, as Bosses always do, to do the unpleasant jobs that would make them look bad otherwise. So he will introduce himself as our friend and then send in his lieutenant to break the legs of the union and the spirit of solidarity.

Bogus BART Poll

2005-05-27T15:32:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch: "'The poll was incredibly bogus,' [Stuart] Cohen [the executive director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition] said. 'The analogy is asking someone whether they want a Mercedes or a Buick, when the fact is that someone would be able to have nine other vehicles for [the] price of that Mercedes. That’s where the poll is totally ridiculous and invalid. What the South Bay needs is a comprehensive rail and bus system and they won’t get it if all the money is put into one project.'"

Right on the money! This isn't the first time a poll was designed to elicit the results desired by the sponsoring organization, in this case VTA. How much would you bet Ron Gonales had a hand in designing the poll? He has been BART to San Jose's biggest supporter. He's building his legacy one huge over-priced construction project at a time. But this one will cost many people their jobs and force many more to move closer in to where they work just to be able to have transportation.

Thanks Mr. Gonzo. Thanks a lot.

Will Work for Food

2005-05-26T14:47:00.000-07:00

The Dispatch: "'We’re not going to get any help from the state or federal government,' [County Executive Pete] Kutras said. 'We’re either going to have to dramatically [reduce services], or have a sales tax for local services.'"

VTA's hand will be out again soon, even though after testing the waters to see if they are warm enough to get another sales tax increase all indications are negative. But the county is also considering a sales tax increase, and both can't be approved, because state law caps sales tax at nine percent. Voters are not likely to approve another hike for VTA, which has increased fares annually while reducing service. This comes at a time when VTA also is expanding its light rail lines and Mayor Gonzoles is pushing to build BART to San Jose even though there is no federal or state backing of the plan. Now the competition with the county for sales tax dollars is heating up as they feel the pinch of declining tax revenues.

I have said it before, and I say it again here: VTA has mismanaged its funds to the point where it is millions of dollars in debt and cannot make good on its long-term obligations.

If the county's tax measure passes, as much as 40% of it could be diverted to VTA. But there is not enough public support to get the required two-thirds vote to pass it, so the county is facing big service cuts. The revenues for the last tax increase aren't likely to provide the shot in the arm VTA hopes they will, due to the sluggish economy, and it isn't likely to get better any time soon. The problem VTA now faces, and the union had better prepare its membership for, is that it must drastically increase its funding or face the fact that it cannot continue existence as a centrally managed mass transit agency responsible for both light rail and bus service for the entire county.

VTA seems to see it that way, too. They are starting a free shuttle service in Los Gatos starting in July that will replace the 60 line. It remains to be seen whether Steve Wong and the gang can make good on his public threats to sue VTA over this plan and whether a court would hold VTA to their agreement with ATU to keep it an all-union shop.

It now looks to me like VTA is intent on eliminating its union-based bus service in favor of low-wage contracted workers and repainting itself as a rail service agency like BART. Whether this can succeed is questionable, given the shift in focus for federal transit funding from light rail to alternative fuel bus technology (e.g., hydrogen powered buses). But with San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales heading the VTA board by being responsible for appointing five of its 12 members and his determination to BARTify San Jose even without outside help, it looks as if there will be no alternative.

VTA would have far fewer problems if it weren't so reliant for local funding on sales tax. SamTrans gets some of their funding from local property taxes, which must be paid regardless of current economic conditions. They have an excellent record of never having to lay off drivers or cut service. VTA puts all of its local funding eggs into one basket with the consequence being wildly fluctuating revenues that are tied to the health of local businesses.

Unless VTA finds another way to fund its operations, it had better revise its mission to exclude bus service and concentrate on the only things it really cares about--light rail and BART. And the union had better wise up and prepare its members for hard times.

Fitch Rates Santa Clara VTA Outlook Positive

2005-05-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

Fitch Rates Santa Clara VTA, California's $232.3MM Sales Tax Bonds 'A+'; Outlook to Positive: "The system's low farebox recovery ratio is expected to remain below 15% through fiscal 2009 despite projected fare increases made in accordance with the board-approved fare policy."

That policy is to raise fares annually for the foreseeable future. Fitch also mentions that the bonds VTA has on offer are secured against its sales tax revenues, which, although recovering, remain sluggish. They rate VTA A+ (Positive). It all seems positive, but to secure that rating has required steep cuts in service and union personnel, even though they insisted on building new light rail and buying new buses with borrowed money, all of which are mentioned in the rating summary, but which Fitch manages to put a positive spin on. All one need do to see the reality of VTA's situation is to compare them to their nearest neighbor, SamTrans, which has laid off perhaps 3 or 4 administrators while maintaining service and front-line staff levels.

PROPOSED BY-LAW AMENDMENTS

2005-05-23T20:11:00.000-07:00

PROPOSED BY-LAW AMENDMENTS: "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."

Before I get into this, I'd just like to say it's about time you updated your web site. Okay, let's get on with it.

"For their faithful performance of their duties, Executive Board Officers shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."

"For the faithful performance of their duties, Committee members... shall pay ½ of their Union Dues..."

Faithful performance? How do you define "faithful performance"? Does it include negotiating a new contract that reduces wages and benefits over the previous contract covering the same period? Does it mean fighting for the jobs of known scumbags who happen to have a buddy in the union office while turning your backs on conscientious employees who happen to disagree with your politics? Perhaps it means depriving members of printed copies of the contract so they can't know if it is being violated. Or does it mean merely neglecting to update the local's Web site for years on end to enable the board to supply as little timely information to the membership as reasonably possible?

Arbitration, and employee infractions, have become so common-place that you feel a standard $5 assessment is necessary to help cover the expense of getting jerks their jobs back. Let's not forget that it is also to help cover the expense of "mandatory audit(s)". When was the last time you made an audit of the Union's financial expenditures easily available to the general membership?

It would be nice to only pay half the dues other members pay, while not having to sit behind the wheel or crawl under a bus. But then, the difficulty of dispatching your duties as hard-working, non-partisan representatives of all ATU members does take its toll, and is a very small price to pay for the stellar performance you give.

On June 15th the membership will have an opportunity to tell you what it thinks of your performance via a vote on your proposed by-laws ammendments. The only changes that have any real meaning are the ones concerning the dues paid by board and committee members. Assessments for arbitration, audits, and general office expenses are easily covered by month-to-month assessments as always. Simply asking any front-line worker "When was the last time your monthly dues fell as low as $62.09? (the proposed new base monthly dues amount)" will verify this.

So let's not be deceived into thinking that these changes are necessary to balance the Union's books. They are mainly designed to provide built-in monthly increases that the board does not have to explain to the membership, which will provide a means to assess greater month-to-month increases that won't look as bad as they do now with the current lower base dues. And with the added perk of halving the dues of board members for their "faithful performance", it all adds up to a great deal for the membership.

Keep up the good work.

Where's the Contract

2004-08-17T13:37:00.000-07:00

Have you seen it? I haven't. It was voted on a looong time ago. But there are still no printed copies.

Why?

If the union can't afford to supply us with printed copies, they can at least post it on their web site. That way members can read it and know when it is being violated. That way they can cite from it when filing grievances.

What about it, Tom? You haven't updated the union web site in almost a year and a half. Here's an opportunity to do something useful with our web site.

Gonzales' Head Still Buried in BART

2004-08-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 08/02/2004 | Support dwindles for BART to S.J.

While other board members have begun to see reason, Ron Gonzales still insists on keeping his head firmly planted up his BART.

San Jose's mayor doesn't want to look at it...

But an idea that's become the proverbial third rail of local transportation politics -- shortening a planned BART line so that it doesn't reach downtown San Jose -- is gaining momentum as transportation leaders face the reality that they can't afford to pay for everything they promised voters four years ago.

Maybe this transit system can be salvaged yet.

Zero-Emission Hydrogen Vehicle Risks

2004-07-29T20:30:00.000-07:00

[http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:tZ748JNUsrYJ:www.slnett.no/digimaker/documents/Sikkerhetsrapport_hydrogen_Veritas_pozDOB80as.pdf+hydrogen+powered+bus+dangers&hl=en] Safety Assessment of Hydrogen Buses (link no longer valid)

Low viscosity (i.e. leaks easily).

Odourless, colourless, tasteless and non-toxic gas (like methane and propane).

Highly flammable with a low ignition energy (electric loading like friction and static electricity can cause ignition).

Burns with a nonluminous (low-visibility) flame, and a faster flame speed than other fuels (if the concentration is not very lean or very rich).

Explosive over a wide gas concentration range (4 % to 74 % by volume). Hydrogen can detonate over a very wide concentration range when confined.

Safety issues regarding fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fueled vehicles
"The two prime dangers from fuel cell and hydrogen-powered vehicles are the danger of electrical shock and the flammability of the fuel....

"The fact that over 350V are needed for the drive train of fuel cell vehicles presents both an electrocution hazard and an ignition source for fuel contained in the vehicle or outside materials. Since a significant amount of the material used in vehicular construction is metal, with some degree of electrical conductivity, there is a high potential for electrical faults. This can pose a threat both in normal operations of the vehicle and especially in accidents. Even though most designs contain failsafe switches for the electrical system, these switches may be short-circuited if the vehicle is involved in an accident.

"In addition to the electric current generated by the fuel cell during its operation, most prototype vehicles have an electrical storage component for acceleration and start up, much like today’s hybrid vehicles. Most fuel cell vehicle store and draw on this additional electricity in form of batteries. Batteries can also represent the additional danger brought on by the presence of acids, to both the electrical system and the fuel system. More exotic and less researched forms of energy storage are ultra capacitors and mechanical flywheels. Ultra capacitors store electrical energy under high voltages for rapid release. While this is positive for vehicle operation, it also holds the risk of very strong unintentional electrical discharges."

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
"The fuel cells fit into the space that normally holds the bus' diesel motor. The price of the bus, however, is $1.1 million ... four times the cost of a standard diesel bus."

California adopts new emission standards for urban buses
"From model year 2008 through 2015, large transit agencies on the "diesel path" will be required to make ZEBs 15% of their new bus purchases/leases. For large transit agencies on "alternative fuels path", the 15% ZEB rule runs from model year 2010 through 2015.

"The new bus emission rule was criticized by the natural gas industry, which expected that the ARB would mandate wider use of alternative fueled buses. Clean diesel technologies, which are allowed for transit agencies that choose the "diesel path", have the potential of achieving emission levels comparable to or cleaner than those from natural gas engines without the high costs of switching to and operating alternative fueled vehicles."

Operations Update July/August 2004
"Under its 2000 Clean Fuels Strategy, VTA will transition from low sulfur diesel technology to Fuel Cell technology as soon as possible."

Once again, VTA demonstrates a total lack of concern for costs. And despite the tall talk about safety being its top concern, completely discounts the catastrophic risks involved in hydrogen fuel cell technology.

All Quiet on the VTA Front

2004-07-20T11:35:00.000-07:00

There doesn't seem to be much going on with VTA. Cipola arrogantly dismissed the Grand Jury report as (big surprise) nonsense. And other than a few complaints of less service (or less convenient service) and higher fares for January, there isn't much to say about it.

VTA's management has been exposed for the incompetent and arrogant jerks that they are--and for once it was done publicly. It is becoming more difficult to hide misdeeds, because the Internet makes it so easy to leak damaging information, and published information is much more easily disseminated; articles buried on the back page of a paper are all too easily promoted to front page status by linking from other sites on the Internet.

So what is in store for VTA in the next two to three years? That will depend on how many well-placed people care about the public money being deliberately wasted there. It will depend on how informed voters are in 2006 when VTA proposes another tax increase to save them from their own spending habits and on the state and federal government's willingness to risk more public money on a losing BART proposition.

If VTA is to survive in a meaningful way, there must be significant change in upper management, both in personnel and structure. The current VTA Board and general management must be replaced. The criteria for member selection must change; there must be accountability to the public served to limit wild, speculative ventures such as the BART extension. And the duties of VTA Board membership must be primary, not secondary to members' "real" jobs. It means making board membership a public office decided by democratic vote.

I encourage you, as employees, to be vocal. Speak up. Make your voices heard.

Start your own web logs, like this one, and link them together. Demand that the union be more visible, more accessable, and more accountable to ALL members, not just those who "bother" to attend monthly union meetings. You have the power to force change, but you must be willing to use it. You must become a visible and noisy force to be reckoned with.

The time is now, while the public is still concious of VTA's internal problems. The future of VTA is in your hands, but only if you realize it and take action.

Scathing Grand Jury Report

2004-06-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

A front page article in the San Jose Mercury News today reports that the Santa Clara County civil grand jury has been investigating VTA for the past year, seeking information about its financial condition and justification for VTA's decision to place the BART extension to San Jose at the top of its list of priorities. VTA's board and upper management did not cooperate with the grand jury and never supplied it with information that would have satisfied their concerns.

In a blistering critique of local transit management, Santa Clara County's civil grand jury on Friday recommended suspending the $4.2 billion BART project to San Jose and disbanding the Valley Transportation Authority's current board of directors... [The grand jury] said the VTA is too important an organization to have board members whose primary duties lie elsewhere, in their jobs as council members and county supervisors. Instead, the board should be pared down to five to seven elected or appointed members [from its current number of 12]. If appointed, transportation should be the members' "main public service responsibility."

The jury was critical of numerous aspects of VTA management, saying that agency board members put parochial interests ahead of countywide concerns and rarely engage in "frank and open discussions on important matters of policy." ...The report also criticized the board for suppressing dissent. It suggested that voters have remained supportive of BART because they lack information about how little congestion relief the extension actually would provide and how it will eat up money intended for other transit projects.

...[T]he grand jury said continuing to pursue the planned 16.3-mile BART extension "may be to the detriment of an integrated transportation network throughout the region" because the agency is sacrificing other transit projects to protect the local contribution for the BART project... On a scale used by the federal government to rate the cost-effectiveness of transit proposals, the BART extension is one of the worst in the country.

VTA board members and Pete Cipola declined to comment on the report. Although the report carries no legal weight, it does require a formal response from VTA. They won't be able to continue dodging the issues that they have habitually ignored any longer.

This report spells the beginning of the end for VTA as it currently exists, at least, as its upper management is currently organized. Union officials, in informal conversations with drivers, have said that Pete Cipola would leave VTA early if offered a large financial incentive. It seems to me that a threat of indictment for fraudulent misappropriation of public funds might be a better incentive.

So far, no changes in VTA policy or management have been considered. Spokesmen for Ron Gonzales -- Mayor of San Jose, self-appointed VTA board member, and appointer of four other board members -- have said that he remains committed to the BART extension regardless of the grand jury report. But political pressure may yet force changes in direction from members of the board and replacement of some, if not all, of VTA's upper management.

Already, VTA has found it difficult to secure funding for the BART extension. The State, under Gray Davis, promised VTA $760 million for the extension, but because of severe budget problems at the state level, Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced that amount to a pittance of $18 million. Projected ridership figures submitted to the federal government, but suppressed by VTA in public hearings, have resulted in one of the worst ratings of any proposed project in the country, making it unlikely that federal funding will save the day.

Instead of rethinking its plans, though, VTA's board wants to propose an additional sales tax for consideration in 2006. All of these actions forced the grand jury to conclude that the board "is too large, too political, too dependent on staff, too inexperienced in some cases, and too removed from the financial and operational performance of VTA."

In other words, they are incompetent.

What has been needed all along, and what this grand jury is only now bringing to light, is a complete overhaul of VTA. In its dogged determination to build BART, hundreds of drivers have been laid off while planning, construction, and purchases of unneeded new vehicles, light rail lines, and facilities have gone forward without regard for cost.

This has to stop.

Right Rail or is it Wrong Rail?

2004-06-15T14:43:00.000-07:00

Got an email from a driver with the above title as the subject.

Why the hell has light rail been running the past few weeks without passengers every day over and over repeatedly on the NEW Capitol corridor??? Thought we didn't have money to waste. Well this seams to be a waste of money to me. Why don't they wait until the posted start date? It will have just as many people to pick up as it does now.

They are probably getting drivers used to the new line and orienting them on its quirks.

As for it not having anyone to pick up... I don't know about that. But I think it is safe to say that it won't bail VTA out of its financial crisis.

The Latest "Training" Tactic

2004-06-08T09:42:00.000-07:00

Update:
The Rule of the Week is now being passed to drivers via the radio system as The Theme of the Week. This week it is Rule 3:11, "No one has real understanding. No one is seeking God." Sorry, that was Romans 3:11... "Section 1: Reporting for duty, Chapter 3: Personal Conduct: 3:11 Children in the workplace: The operator shall not bring children to the workplace for the purpose of providing child care." Translation -- Don't get caught driving your bus with your children aboard. VTA, at their discretion, may interpret this to be providing child care.

There was a situation last year at North Yard where a driver passed his son's school on his route and picked him up when he got out of school. As there were only a couple of hours between his son getting out of school and the driver getting off work, he kept his son with him. He was written up for this.

----------

The Rule of the Week. Yes, that's right. Now management has instituted a new tool to "teach" policy to pupils -- I mean, drivers. Drivers are required to know what "The Rule of the Week" is, and if they violate that rule during the week there is no leeway afforded them; their hall pass is taken away -- I mean, they are written up -- immediately.

It fits right in with their insistance that drivers bring in a note from Mommy -- I mean, a doctor -- when using sick leave beyond one day. That they do not have a similar requirement for other employees just means that management realizes drivers are no more than undisciplined children in need of restraint.

So, what is this week's rule? Remember the book of rules management produced and required all drivers to carry with them? Alright then, class, turn your books to chapter 10 and find Rule 10.7., and remember, spit balls and unnecessary talking will not be tolerated.

Incidents - The Operator SHALL (isn't "shall" a nice word -- conveying the concept of ultimate, absolute, and unconditional authority so necessary when dealing with unruly children?) immediately notify OCC of any disturbance (Ah, room for interpretation! Almost anything can be a "disturbance".), criminal behavior, and/or altercation on coaches, in coach stops or on any other VTA property.

I suggest a liberal interpretation of the word disturbance. Getting written up for the acts of passengers, pedestrians, or other passers-by on VTA property, including at the divisions, because any and all drivers witnessing such disturbances failed to report them to OCC, just wouldn't do.

In keeping with the spirit of encouraging cooperation and understanding that management deems so important, I shall start posting my own version of The Rule of the Week. Look for it in the coming days.

VTA -- A Spinning Top

2004-06-05T13:53:00.000-07:00

MercuryNews.com | 06/04/2004 | VTA considering transit tax plan:

VTA wants to propose yet another sales tax increase for consideration by voters in 2006. This is to help offset an anual operating deficit of $79 million which continues despite $65 million in cuts claimed by Pete Cipola.

In the meantime, the steep discounts in monthly fares riders have enjoyed throughout VTA's 31-year history are ending abruptly. The Board voted 9-2 on Thursday to increase fares beginning in January, 2005:

"I absolutely oppose what they did," said Kevin Kittila, 39, of San Jose, a disabled bus rider whose monthly pass will go from $17.50 to $26. "I'm not responsible for the VTA's problems, and it's not fair for them to make me responsible."

But, countered supervisor and VTA Chairman Don Gage: "This board is not trying to hurt people. We're trying to run this agency as a business."

Really? Businesses don't retain top-heavy administration staff positions at the expense of the front-line workers that deliver what the business sells. But VTA does. They have yet to make any significant cuts in administration, but have laid off drivers twice in two years. VTA has embarked on very high-cost construction projects in the last three years, including two light rail extensions, a completely rebuilt North Yard division, and has continued purchasing new vehicles -- bus and light rail -- despite the fact that none of these things were necessary.

Where were the $65 million in supposed cuts made, Mr. Cipola? Give us an accurate and clear accounting. Do you include the sale of the existing light rail fleet in your calculations? If so, you are flat out lying to the public. Yes, you sold them, but then turned right around and leased them back, nullifying the effect of the sale. All that accomplished was to raise borrowed cash, raise the debt level of VTA, and obligate the agency to repay millions of dollars over the term of the lease.

You don't run a business by spending hundreds of millions of dollars that you don't have while reducing service and raising prices, and then beg for more donations while lying about how you have cut costs. You're not running a business; you're running a fraudulent charity!

"New Page 2" Not So New

2004-06-03T22:43:00.000-07:00

Newsletter:

"M I N U T E S
EXECUTIVE/GRIEVANCE BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, May 27, 2003"

It has now been more than a year since the union updated their web site.

Bogus eBay UPS Uniform Sale Fools Sheriff

2004-06-03T21:03:00.000-07:00

A memorandum posted in the driver's rooms at all divisions concerning the purchase of UPS uniforms on eBay asking all personnel to be vigilant is bogus. It was written on May 12, 2004 by Sergeant Waldherr from Special Operations and is a verbatim reprint of an email from Kimberly Bush-Carr, Management Program Specailist, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

A simple Internet search for Kimberly Bush-Carr turns up this: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-ups-uniforms.htm

However, the FBI subsequently confirmed that these purchases were, in fact, thoroughly investigated by the agency and found not to be terrorist-related. I repeat: the purchases were not terrorist-related, according to the FBI.

Update: Despite the apparent signature of a Dept. of Homeland Security official ("Kimberly Bush-Carr") on versions circulating since June 2003, this message did not originate from the U.S. government. The signature is a hoax.

The rumor of the purchase of UPS uniforms has been circulating since February 2003 and has been debunked by the FBI. You would think the Sheriff's Department would investigate more thoroughly before alarming the entire organization.

New Policies Communicated Through Termination

2004-06-03T14:43:00.000-07:00

VTA has changed its policies regarding attendance without informing employees. Instead of warning drivers and even dispatchers of changes in how it handles absenses involving sick leave, it is simply moving to terminate them with no warning.

Alex Chrisolis is under fire for a recorded phone conversation with Judy Chaney... I mean Bicknell... no, Hoyer... shit, I mean Fernandez... damn -- Hegstrom, in which he joked with What's-Her-Name about meeting for dinner in southern California on a day when he was off sick.

All joking aside, it should have been obvious to any dim-witted VTA spy that both parties in the conversation knew they were being monitored and were simply baiting management. VTA, though, is using that conversation as justification for firing him.

Never mind that he brought in a note from a physician. Never mind that he did not meet Judy for dinner or that no one saw him do anything in violation of VTA policy. All that matters, it seems, is that he said these things in a recorded telephone conversation.

Lack of corroborating evidence is no barrier when VTA wants to get rid of an employee. As if this wasn't already adequately bizarre, Alex is one of the Employee's of the Year. Obviously, the esteem of VTA for exemplary employees is only skin deep.

The deeper issue here is that long-standing written policies are meaningless, that, as always, VTA mis-management cannot be trusted. If you care about your job, don't even joke about violating policies, even if you are well-liked. None of that matters when they are under pressure to cut costs but protect their own jobs by avoiding cutting where it counts -- administration.

VTA still has one of the highest ratios of administrative positions to buses in the nation. Remember that when demanding that they justify their actions.

Vacation Leisure

2004-06-02T10:09:00.000-07:00

It's nearly time for many to go on vacation. The weather is beautiful and for once there is little bad news from the VTA front. Go forth and have fun.

Use Sick Leave -- Lose Your Job

2004-05-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

Bill Harrison was fired yesterday for using sick leave under FMLA. Alex Chrisolis (sorry if I mangled your name) is under investigation for using one day of sick leave on the front end of his vacation.

By contract, union employees may use three sick days per year without a doctor's note. That is not stopping Tucker (with an F) from firing them.

Beware! It may be better to simply take a missout than to book off sick for one day.

The union will probably be able to get your job back later, but they no longer fight to get back wages owed you for wrongful termination. It seems that since Bill McKlean left, so did the union's backbone.

State Trickles Funds to BART Extension

2004-05-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

The Governator promised $18 million to fund the BART extension to San Jose on Thursday. Davis originally earmarked $760 million, which prompted voters to approve additional sales tax to supplement the State's promised grant in 2000.

With the estimated cost of building the BART extension at $4.1 billion, $18 million is a drop in the bucket. It is just 2.4% of the original amount promised by the State and less than one half of one percent of the total estimated cost of the project.

Half the money is expected to come from local sales tax revenue. The rest must be secured from state and federal funding. It is clear that the state cannot contribute a significant amount to the project.

The federal government has given the BART extension to San Jose one of the lowest ratings of any project proposed in the country. This makes it unlikely that federal funds will be forthcoming.

Yet VTA still holds out hope that the federal government will fund the project. However, now VTA must not only convince Washington to fund it, but to fund it with even more money than would have been necessary if the state were able to contribute to it in a meaningful way.

VTA continues to insist that the BART extension must be built. To do so means that VTA will have to cut or push back funding for other projects. Eventually, without enough money to go around, VTA will have to cut or subcontract its bus service.

That will mean more layoffs and labor contract negotiations.

Ron Gonzales -- Jugular of the VTA Board

2004-05-11T08:21:00.000-07:00

VTA's BART plans are a direct result of Ron Gonzales' campaigning efforts. Despite VTA's own projections that BART to San Jose will have a negligable affect on Bay Area traffic congestion, San Jose's Mayor and VTA's Board Chairman insists that it will. He continues to ignore the north county cities' objections to the BART extension as being over-priced and ineffective. This is particularly disturbing given that VTA has twice laid off drivers and cut service in the last three years in an attempt to operate within a reduced budget and a 40% reduction in ridership.

Add to this disturbing picture that VTA continues unnecessarily replacing older equipment with new, replacing older facilities by building new ones, and building new light rail extensions at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars -- all at a time when VTA can least afford it -- and it becomes clear that VTA is governed by a band of incompetent bureaucrats with nothing but spending other people's money on their minds.

Mr. Gonzales is also responsible for appointing five of the members of the VTA Board. Ordinarily, a member's vote counts only once, but since five members depend on Ron Gonzales to reappoint them from time to time, they cannot afford to oppose him on major issues -- such as BART -- if they wish to remain on the Board. This gives more weight to Ron Gonzales' desires than they deserve.

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.

He is under the impression not only that this is enough to get him off the hook for illegal campaign financing, but that the public will naturally agree with his wishes and forgive any funding irregularities. Several municipalities, including Palo Alto and Los Gatos, have sent official letters to VTA demanding more reasonable transit fund allocation, fearing quite rightly that the BART extension will drain away all available transit funding for the foreseeable future, leaving the north county cities with no funds for transit improvements. Mr. Gonzales ignores them.

His only concern as VTA Board Chairman and as Mayor of San Jose, is for his own re-election. He will do whatever he thinks the residents of San Jose perceive to be in their best interests, and will ignore objections from outside the city as long as they do not affect his re-election plans.

Before any meaningful change of direction can happen on VTA's Board, Ron Gonzales must be voted out of office as Mayor of San Jose. If he is allowed to continue as VTA's Board Chairman, the transit agency will continue to slide into deep economic crisis, the citizens of Santa Clara County will have less transit service than they do now, and those who were laid off at VTA will not see their positions reinstated.

Cash-Strapped VTA Still Spending Millions on BART

2004-05-09T13:26:00.000-07:00

VTA is forging ahead with its BART expansion plans despite protests from county municipalites that must pay for it and do not benefit by it. The cost of the BART extension is estimated to be more than $4 billion. VTA is spending tens of millions of dollars just studying its proposals.

Two billion dollars of the estimated cost is to come from local funding -- sales taxes and farebox revenue. The rest is to come from state and federal grants. The state cannot make good on its promises to help fund the BART extension. And the federal government has not said it would provide any money at all.

VTA has a problem on its hands. On the one hand it has cut service and laid off drivers twice in order to work within a dwindling influx of available operating cash. On the other hand, it promised voters in 2000 that BART would be extended to San Jose. Yet it does not, and will not, have the money to fulfill that promise.

Angry Riders Protest Fare Hikes

2004-05-08T10:58:00.000-07:00

Mercury News | 05/07/2004 | SAN JOSE:

Protesters at VTA's Thursday board meeting threatened to stop riding if VTA raises fares in January as planned. Those threats have always been empty. Fare hikes result in few people actually finding alternate transportation. They either have no other alternatives or realize that even with higher fares, riding the bus still results in a lower out-of-pocket expense than driving or taking a cab.

"VTA's paltry farebox recovery -- as the measure is known in the transit industry -- is a key reason why it has a financial crisis that has led to layoffs and deep cuts in service."

What does affect how many people use the bus system is the level of service. When the board cuts routes and schedules, people are forced to find other ways to get to and from. In a recent propaganda flyer, Tucker said he wants all employees to render world-class service. He should lead by example before he makes demands like that. When drivers are handed an action plan that reduces service, the result is drastic reductions in the number of people able or willing to use VTA for their transportation needs.

Ridership has dropped 40%. That has nothing to do with drivers rendering less than world-class service and everything to do with the VTA Board's unwillingness to even create, let alone maintain, a world-class transit system.

Doing More With Less

2004-05-07T19:46:00.000-07:00

It has come to my attention that drivers are being re-re-re-assigned in some rather creative ways in order to avoid giving them any overtime. This is a directive from above. Apparently management does not want to pay what it costs to have a reduced workforce that still must cover more work than there are drivers employed to work it without overtime.

So in some cases dispatchers are letting drivers relieve runs and then pulling them off the run before even one hour has passed so that all drivers on the schedule will get no overtime.

With such non-standard run combinations being created on the fly, extra board operators had better track their pay carefully. If dispatchers don't enter the run information correctly into the computer, you won't get paid. Some dispatchers are known to be less than thorough with computer record keeping. You'd think their last name were Flintstone (hint, hint ;-).

VTA Put In Their Place

2004-04-27T10:59:00.000-07:00

Pressure from north county cities is forcing VTA to reprioritize their spending plan for Measure A funds originally earmarked for CalTrain upgrades which VTA arbitrarily decided to spend on BART to San Jose instead. A cynical Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group President and CEO Carl Guardino, in an article published in today's Palo Alto Daily News, said, "Caltrain was very important to voters. Call me old fashioned, but I believe we should ask people
what they want to spend their money on."

Not willing to take VTA at their word about the change of plans for Measure A funds, the article says that "[o]thers have floated the notion of a ballot initiative to specify how Measure A revenue would be spent." What this says is that VTA has lost the confidence of the public in their ability and willingness to do the will of the voters.

SamTrans Layoffs

2004-04-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

4/20 Redwood City Independent|SamTrans plans cuts; BART ridership "inching" up|By Justin Nyberg
Staff Writer:

SamTrans plans to lay off 18 employees and eliminate
or reduce service on several bus routes in an attempt to overcome a
deep operating deficit, the governing board announced last week.

The layoffs would be the first in SamTrans' 28-year history...

[and] will be limited to administrative positions....

By contrast, VTA has laid off bus drivers no less than four times in its equally long history -- bus drivers, not administrators. It has laid off drivers twice in just the last three years! Why is it that SamTrans, a smaller transit agency with big BART commitments, succeeds in keeping its front line workers employed, while VTA protects its administrative staff and lays off its drivers?

Even the Experts Agree

2004-04-20T13:46:00.000-07:00

Light Rail Now! Editorial Blasts VTA Management:

Edson L. Tennyson, P.E., is a transportation consultant and former deputy secretary of transportation for the State of Pennsylvania.
...[I]n one of the most astonishing and questionable actions I have ever seen in transit, VTA went and bought 100 new cars to replace the fifty UTDC cars that were only 18 years old. That is a major reason why they are out of money. They wanted low-floor cars, despite this heavy expense. Money did not seem to matter -– but of course it does. ...VTA's leadership has got to get real.

Even this obviously pro-light rail advocate concedes that VTA mismanages its money. He downplays their obvious disregard for efficiency or its effects on their budget, or the complete disconnect between their spending for new construction and local economic conditions. Nevertheless, it is a glaring indicator of mismanagement when a bureaucrat and proponent of public transit so harshly criticizes a public transit agency's mismanagement.

Transportation Choice, Or Forced Mass Transit?

2004-04-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

Victoria Transport Policy Institute:

This Canadian non-profit research organization advocates several changes to society in the name of bringing choice in transportation alternatives to commuters. The collective changes it advocates add up to forced mass transit for all but the rich, however.

First, they advocate linking odometer readings to charges for road use and insurance rates, charging more for insurance and road taxes to drivers who drive greater distances. We already have a system in place in this country for road use taxes based on distance -- gas taxes. But linking insurance rates to odometer readings only benefits insurance companies; it is nothing more than a punishment to drivers who use their vehicles more and has no benefit to the public at large.

The idea is to encourage drivers to abandon their personal vehicles in favor of mass transit by making it too expensive to drive long distances.

The Institute also advocates reducing or eliminating parking space for personal vehicles in residential areas and eliminating free parking where it currently exists. This would make it impractical to even own a personal vehicle, even if it is seldom driven. To even get from one's home to their personal vehicle would require either some form of public transportation to get to it or to have a chauffeur bring it to one's home. Only the rich can afford a chauffeur and only the rich could afford a car under this scenario.

To implement these changes would require rebuilding current housing to eliminate personal parking. Since that is unlikely, it would drive up the cost of such housing, making it affordable only to the rich. New housing would have no space for personal parking, making existing housing that does more desirable and increasingly rare. Those without the means to pay for parking a vehicle or actually driving it and also to pay more for housing that provides parking space would be forced to live where they can get by with public transportation -- the inner cities. The quality of life for the vast majority of people would suffer and their practical choices in transportation and lifestyle would be fewer, not greater.

Local Activism on the Move

2004-04-20T09:32:00.000-07:00

Transportation and Land Use Coalition:

Save Our Transit!
TALC's campaign in Santa Clara County is working to stop VTA from raising fares and making huge cuts in bus and rail service! Download a flyer and petition and help Save Our Transit!

But is it working? When was the last time VTA changed its mind and did not raise fares as planned. They have already stated their intention to raise fares annually. These objections will not be heard; the board has already decided the issue and their June vote will only be a formality to record that decision.

The Transportation and Land Use Coalition thinks VTA is planning huge service cuts in July. I just don't see that. It would also mean more layoffs. Nothing in their proposals for July indicate big cutbacks.

I applaud their enthusiasm for bus and light rail service. But they seem to be trying to alarm the public with misinformation. If they do that and their predictions fail to materialize, how will the public respond to them when they sound the alarm over real issues?

Warped Thinking in Political Arena

2004-04-17T10:08:00.000-07:00

Mercury News | 04/14/2004 | Second complaint filed over S.J. mayor's fundraising:

I have noticed a trend among political activists concerning how they justify their actions. It is a variation on "The Ends Justify the Means". San Jose mayor Ron Gonzales is being accused by two groups of violating San Jose's fund raising laws by taking contributions of as much as $5,000 -- when there is a legal cap of $250 in a non-election year and $500 in an election year.

The mayor has said he needs the account to help him lobby state and federal lawmakers about issues such as the extension of BART to San Jose.

His remarks do not even begin to address the legal issues, other than by denying that the contributions are illegal. If this is going on at the mayor's office, what must be occurring at VTA's board?

Jeff Coykendall Says It Like It Is

2004-04-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

Mountain View Voice|Letters to the Editor (April 16, 2004):

BART riders stuck without buses to complete the trip

Editor:

Visualize this: BART gets built at the expense of every other sensible mass transit solution at billions of dollars. The first day it opens, some 20,000 East Bay residents (not Santa Clara County taxpayers) get out of their cars and get on board BART for a trip to San Jose and Santa Clara.

They arrive at the end of the line, only to realize that due to BART's expensive ego trip, there are no buses to take them to work, school, the doctor or shopping.

Why are there no buses? Because VTA had to cut back on routes and service to cover the expense of BART.

So, what do those 10,000 to 20,000 passengers do the very next day? They get in their cars, and drive to work, school, the doctor or shopping ... leaving BART cars empty.

Jeff Coykendall

Pinehurst Avenue, Los Gatos

Art Pena Died Today

2004-04-16T14:57:00.000-07:00

I will miss him. His life was too short and his death too painful.

Goodbye, Art.

VTA Pension Fund Fraud

2004-04-07T07:47:00.000-07:00

In the April 19th issue of Forbes magazine (don't you just love how magazines date their issues?) Neil Weinberg reports:

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's pension board put out a tough-sounding memo in January, announcing that it was firing Putnam Investments as the manager of its $36 million international equity portfolio. The move had been recommended by the pension fund's adviser, Mercer Investment Consulting, in the wake of Putnam's poor returns and its indictment for securities fraud.

The article also mentions that Putnam and Mercer are owned by the same company, Marsh & McLennan, that Mercer hand-picked Putnam to manage VTA'a international equity portfolio -- one part of VTA's overall pension offerings, and that Mercer receives millions of dollars every year from the managers it supposedly evaluates objectively.

VTA conveniently forgot to mention those facts in its memo, and even claims ignorance concerning them.

The Blame Frame

2004-04-06T07:55:00.000-07:00

In the March "Route 265" Al Triplett, in his article titled "Hope, Not Blame", implies that if we do not have fond feelings for the union and even management that we are impotent politically. Worse, he implies that only a government that is in agreement with the union's political agenda is fair. I do not believe that union members account for a majority of voting citizens in this country. And, like it or not, that makes unions a minority of voters. Would it be fair for that minority to dictate public policy for the rest of society?

"This administration is attempting to transform our democracy into an authoritarian regime." I suppose, Al, that overthrowing Saddam's kinder, gentler regime and taking steps to secure this country from further terrorist attacks is draconian? It's a nice pipe dream you have that we can continue business as usual and "Hope" that nothing like 9/11 happens again. Of course, if it does, you will no doubt blame Bush for it. In your hands he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that there is an R next to his name rather than a D.

"It's my hope that all of us in our union will join together and joyfully work towards removing this anti-worker, anti-family administration from office and work towards a fairer society." Hmm... anti-worker, anti-family? It's easy to see that unions are, without exception, anti-business. Tell me, where would unions be without business? Answer: unemployed. The anti-family remark does not even belong in a union newsletter. Besides it being total crap, it has nothing to do with the union's charter.

I suppose you blame the Bush administration for the recession that started before he took office, and, by extension, the layoffs that happened in the subsequent months, irrespective of the fact that VTA refused to downsize its administration staff or cut back construction projects to save union jobs. That might explain your eagerness to thwart union members pointing their fingers at management. Or does it?

What about doing what this union was formed to do in the first place, Al -- protecting the jobs of its members, protecting their wages and benefits from an obviously irresponsible employer with no regard for ATU members, and ensuring that they are treated fairly by that same employer?

In another article, this one written by Tom Fink, the union attacks the Bush administration concerning the shrinking coffers of the Social Security system. "Once again, the wolf of Social Darwinism is lurking at the chicken coop door, tearfully lamenting the doom awaiting the Social Security hens within. Ordinarily, wolves don't shed crocodile tears, but in the house-of-mirrors world of Bush-ism, even biology goes sideways." ...Whatever that means! Not withstanding the hopelessly mixed metaphors, he goes on to say, "[Alan] Greenspan himself set up a viable financing scheme for Social Security back in 1983, but it relies on the ability of the federal government to pay back the money it borrowed from the nation's retirement and disability system to fund other programs." That borrowing to fund other programs was going on long before 1983, as even Tom admits. Tell me, Tom, who has controlled Congress for most of the last 40 years? Bush? The Republicans? Who sacked Social Security? Which political party is it that is so in favor of government programs? Is it the Republicans, or the Democrats? The Clinton administration was in power for eight years. Why didn't they solve the problem? Oh, of course, it was the fault of Republicans, wasn't it, Tom.

In his final remarks Tom suggests forcibly taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor. Sounds good, doesn't it? Something for nothing? Take a good look at the history of the Soviet Union. Look even more closely at the economic status of individuals in such places as Great Britain, France, and Canada. They have very high taxes, but their level of social services leaves much to be desired. They come to the United States just to get timely medical treatment. Taking from the rich and redistributing it to the poor -- that's one of the foundational ideas behind both socialism and communism. Is that what the union advocates?

There is the suggestion in Al's article that unless union members speak with one voice (his) that we are politically impotent, that unless we agree with the union's (his) agenda, removing Bush from office and preventing any more Republicans from being elected, redistributing wealth, and ignoring the glaring abuses of public money by VTA that truly endanger our jobs, that we are without power. He is wrong.

If he and the rest of the elected union officers spent half as much energy exposing abuses at VTA and working to correct those abuses as they do on their political agendas, this union and its membership would enjoy far greater security in their wages, their benefits -- in their very jobs. But they are using this union and their position in it to promote their personal political agendas at the expense of the wages, benefits, and jobs of the members that voted them into office.

Shame on you all!

Daylight Savings Time

2004-04-03T18:05:00.000-08:00

It's that time again. Tomorrow Daylight Savings Time starts, so set your clocks one hour ahead. If the clock reads 2:00, set it to 3:00, and pity whoever gets 3:00 AM point on Monday.

Politics As Usual

2004-03-26T07:15:00.000-08:00

The House of Representatives passed a transportation re-authorization bill on Thursday that includes funding for extending BART to San Jose. The bill costs $375 billion. The president has stated he will veto any transportation bill that costs more than $275 billion. Congress knows that.

This is another case of political game playing, with BART, VTA, and the livelihoods of thousands of people being used as chips in the game. This game has been going on for some time; this is not the first transportation re-authorization bill. "In Transit" for January/February included pre-printed post cards for members to send to Congress asking them to vote yes on an even more expensive bill that also went nowhere. Democrats in Congress will continue this charade at least until after the re-election. (I think it unlikely that the Democrats will win the White House.) Then they will magically come up with a transportation bill in line with the president's spending limit and declare themselves reasonable and demand the president also be reasonable.

Even if they pass a bill that the president signs, the state will have to match funding to give BART and VTA enough money to complete the extension. This seems unlikely given the current budget crisis in Sacramento and BART's solid history of underestimating construction costs by 50%.

VTA's board continues to be unwilling to budge on BART, ranking it first on their list of projects to be funded in the next 25 years. Funding for lower ranking projects is dependent on how much money higher ranking projects cost. So if there is not enough money left after completing the BART extension, projects lower on the list are delayed or scrapped.

Completing the project is one thing. Operating it is another. There is no guarantee that, once completed, there will be enough revenue from fares to offset costs. In San Mateo County the San Francisco Airport BART extension does not draw enough riders to offset those costs, so SamTrans must make up the difference in the form of payments to BART. This is the source of friction between BART and SamTrans, which does not have enough money to subsidize the BART extension and still operate their own bus lines. VTA could end up in the same situation with the BART extension to San Jose.

While there might be money to operate the BART extension, without a dramatic increase in local sales tax revenue there will be little left over to operate both light rail and the bus system. The local economy, which is dependent on the computer industry, is lagging in recovering from the recession. Unless profit earning businesses recover to the same level they enjoyed in 2000 VTA will not see enough money to justify operating their own bus lines.

This means more layoffs and possibly, what is worse, privatizing the bus system. Many outside of VTA see that as a good thing. It lowers the cost of operating and maintaining buses -- at least, it looks that way on the surface. But let's face it -- being a bus driver sucks. The public hates us. The riders hate us. Management hates us. The only positive aspect of the job for many is a nice paycheck and good benefits. Without that there is little incentive to work for VTA. Once new employees see the political atmosphere they must endure they will choose to work elsewhere. Turnover will increase dramatically, which will cause training costs to skyrocket. And service will suffer as a result.

Politics at River Oaks ensures that administration will continue fully staffed. They will sacrifice drivers and service, and even the bus system itself, in order to preserve their own jobs. They insist on pretending that public sources of money will continue being available just as they have been for the last 30 years. But times are changing. Public transit is moving away from bus service and public money cannot be counted on to fund the system. In essence, VTA's bus drivers are being railroaded out of their jobs. The previous two layoffs are only the beginning of a slow slide that will only end when the bus system is run under contract to a private company that pays little more than minimum wage.

Wishful Thinking Continues

2004-03-23T07:10:00.000-08:00

Mercury News | 03/22/2004 | Cities add priorities to VTA's to-do list:

"Let's complete the preliminary engineering and see where we are in the next 18 to 24 months,'' said Ben Tripousis, a transportation manger for San Jose. "The federal situation could change. The local fiscal picture may change.

"At that point you can make a more intelligent decision about what to do with a project the magnitude of BART.''

It seems many on the board still hold out hope that their BART dreams
will be saved by a white knight in flowing financial armor. They still
hold out hope for federal and state money to fully fund their favorite
projects, and for a turnaround in the local economy to boost sales tax
revenue.

Rather than deal with the fiscal realities we face today, they insist
on ignoring the obvious facts of the current situation by:

spending $52 million to study the BART extension to San Jose

refusing to cut back administrative staff to save money

ignoring the outcry from city councils across the county to
fairly allocate transit funds

and pretending that their plans are in line with the desires and
needs of the communities they are bound by law to serve.

These points are all too obvious when observing board members during their
meetings and watching their stone faced responses to repeated appeals
from citizens and groups in attendance to see reason, and watching them
vote in direct opposition to their desires.

The public commenting periods during these meetings are a sham. They
are a part of the hearings only to create the illusion that your needs
are being seriously considered, when in reality their vote is only a
formality to record the decisions already made behind closed doors
before the meetings are held.

The Paddle -- Fact or Fiction?

2004-03-23T06:06:00.000-08:00

VTA News Releases:

"Line 88 (Palo Alto Caltrain Station to California Ave. Caltrain Station)

Major weekday schedule changes will be made to better reflect actual running times."

VTA's news release detailing schedule changes for April reveals that the current schedule for the 88 is, apparently, a work of fiction. Being the target of both major schedule and routing changes over the years, VTA does not seem able to decide what to do with this line. My feeling is that they would like to get rid of it entirely, but that public pressure from the VA and Palo Alto residents keeps the ax away.

Letter Scathing to "The Dispatch", Elected Officials, and VTA

2004-03-19T07:41:00.000-08:00

The Dispatch

In a letter to "The Dispatch", Joseph P. Thompson of Gilroy blasts the
inaccurate reporting of VTA's true deficit spending and the inaccurate
comparison between the cost of driving an automobile vs. the cost of
riding a transit bus. Here is his letter:

VTA's operating deficit is truly staggering

Thursday, March 18, 2004

DEAR EDITOR:

Your Feb. 23 report about VTA increasing bus fares repeats previous
incorrect reports about the size of VTA's operating deficit. Ignoring
all capital and fixed costs, VTA's annual operating loss is about $277
million (operating expenses less fares paid by riders).

However, if we required transit agencies to apply generally accepted accounting
principles , then we would have to add the billions of taxpayers' dollars used to pay VTA's other costs, too. When will you report that?

If farebox recovery rate has dropped below the legal limit (15
percent of operating costs) prescribed by Section 99268.12 of the
Public Utilities Code, then when will our elected leaders sue VTA to
recover the illegal subsidies? We don't let passenger carriers violate
the law, do we?

Even if they are managed by our elected
leaders, they still have to obey the law - right? Nobody is above the
law - right? So, why are our leaders ignoring the illegal activity
right under their noses?

Since the accounting scandals at
Worldcom, and others, why do we tolerate 'off-book' accounting
practices at VTA and our other transit agencies?

Finally, four
nationwide studies reviewed by Greene, Jon Delucchi in "The
Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation: Contributions to Theory,
Method and Measurement" (Springer Publishing Co., 1997), found auto
costs "clustering around 3 to 4 cents per passenger mile." In contrast,
they found public transit costs "significantly higher," "ranging from
40 cents per passenger mile to around $2 per passenger mile." So, why
do you report that "VTA is generally still cheaper than driving"? Your
readers deserve better.

Joseph P. Thompson, Gilroy

Well said. If he is right, then the board is operating illegally and
probably trying to spend as much money as possible as quickly as
possible before they get caught. If they can build major capital
projects such as light rail and BART before anyone notices that they
are not entitled to subsidies, no one will come back and demand that it
all be dismantled.

Instead, the board will be slapped on the wrist and ordered to pay back
the money. They will then declare bankruptcy and restructure their
debts to comfortably accomodate their losses, while the public
continues being forced to subsidize their operations through sales
taxes.

And if worse comes to worse, they will simply subcontract the bus
system and cut back operations to just light rail while protecting
their administrative staff.

Renegade Board

2004-03-16T11:13:00.000-08:00

The VTA Board is acting more and more like a renegade. It does whatever it wants without regard for the needs of outlying communities, such as Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Milpitas, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Gatos. Representatives from San Jose monopolize the decision-making process, ignoring requests from other cities for fair representation and equitable distribution of funding.

BART and Light Rail are its two pet projects. If the relationship between SamTrans and BART is any indication, VTA is headed for trouble. Already in the hole, with projected funding falling far short of amounts needed to complete and operate the BART extension into Santa Clara County, VTA nevertheless is stubbornly forging ahead with high-cost studies in preparation for the proposed BART extension. Light Rail, which is now run using leased equipment, is sucking funds dry, while ridership is down 40%.

Regular fare hikes and layoffs of drivers together with protecting administrative jobs, service cuts, and routing changes have only added to their dismal public image and lackluster performance. The Board is out of touch with the needs of the community. It has little idea how to even run a transit agency, but behaves as if its only obligation is to acquire and spend as much public money as possible.

July Service Changes

2004-03-16T07:37:00.000-08:00

Proposed July Service Changes- VTA Public Meetings, February 9-11, 2004 - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

I put off looking at this as long as I could stand. I knew they would
do what they always do -- chop up, re-arrange, and re-number bus routes.

Remember line 47 at North Yard? It's coming back. Don't worry, though.
It will run out of Cerone and go to the Great Mall. Remember Line 74?
Oh, sorry -- REMEMBER line 74, because it is being deleted and will be
partially covered by line 31, which will also cover parts of the 70.
The 300 will go to Eastridge. Yeah! Maybe that will make it a more
clueless-friendly line, after everyone who is clueless about the
changes made to it realize when we turn right on Capital that it
doesn't go to White Road anymore. "Hey, don't yell at me. You should
have read the headsign, listened to the annunciator, read the public
notices, ...."

Schedule changes? Yup.

Under the Heading, "Proposed July Service Changes" VTA says "The
Mountain View to I-880/Milpitas line would be modified to terminate at
Baypointe Station." Mind you, this is just a proposal. Don't get the
idea that they have already decided all of this and are holding public
hearings only to make everyone feel like they have some input. Well,
okay, fine. There isn't a chance in hell that they will change their
plans based on input from public hearings. There, don't you feel better?

Terrorist Security is a Hoax

2004-03-13T05:10:00.000-08:00

In an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle on Friday (BA
transit agencies say they're ready for attacks) VTA spokesperson
Lupe Solis had this to say about terrorist security measures, "We have
really invested a lot of energy, money and personnel into a
state-of-the-art transportation security system. We are fully
prepared for any kind of situation that, God forbid, might happen."

While it is true that they have invested a lot of money
into cameras, microphones, and GPS tracking systems for buses and
light rail trains, the only measure to beef up security is a memo
asking drivers to be more vigilant about suspicious activity and
packages aboard buses, but to be sure not to
"unfairly" target anyone who might actually look like a Middle Eastern
Islamic terrorist.

It reminds me of the movie "Airplane" in which airport security allows
several men of Middle Eastern descent in fatigues and carrying AK-47s
to run past them. But when a little old white lady carrying a purse
waddles by they draw their guns and yell, "Up against the wall --
spread em!"

Fear of a politically incorrect stance keeps VTA from truly increasing security.

In reality, the cameras and microphones aboard buses are used for
watching drivers, not passengers, in spite of the fact that no cameras
are specifically aimed at them. Management would point out that many
vandals have been caught with the security cameras aboard buses, but
the real return on their investment has been on increased disciplinary
measures against their own employees backed up by recorded video and
audio from the security system.

They would also point out that the cameras and microphones aboard
buses are a deterrent to would-be criminals. But an Islamic terrorist
on a suicide mission knows only two words -- infidel and jihad. And
the motivation for sacrificing their own life? -- seven virgins to do
with as they please for all eternity in the paradise of Allah. They
want to die. No camera or microphone will deter them. In fact, such
measures may even embolden them if they think their actions will be
viewed by the world.

Invoking such phrases as "state-of-the-art" when describing VTA's
cameras and microphones is a means of instilling a false sense of
security in the public consciousness. In reality, there is no security
system aboard buses. The only watchful eyes are those of the driver,
who must, by necessity, pay attention to the road. The warning to not
unfairly target people of Middle Eastern appearance combined with
VTA's history of using recordings from the video and audio system
aboard buses for disciplinary purposes, rather than deterring
terrorists, only deters drivers from getting involved lest they lose
their jobs.

Cameras and microphones do not enhance security; they do nothing to increase the safety of passengers or drivers. All they can do is document the horrific acts of the insane.

Effective security can only be realized when fear of being politically incorrect is no longer an issue. We must have enough sense and fortitude to "discriminate" based on appearance. Blindly ignoring the obvious -- that most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims from the Middle East -- is a recipe for death.

VTA Board Holding Last Meeting Tonight

2004-03-11T15:48:00.000-08:00

The last of a series of meetings to gather public input about VTA's 25-year plan is tonight. In an interview one of the board members stated that this is the first time in its 30-year history that VTA has sought public input about its plans. Pause there for a moment.

This is the first time they have ever sought public input concerning their plans. Am I the only one who is struck by how odd that is? After working for VTA for a while most drivers take for granted the disconnect between upper management and the public. We often laugh at its various manifestations.

Upper managers who decree that riders in the Toyon area WILL pay twice for a ride beyond White and McKee. The same managers who later reverse their first "Thou Shalt". Routes that change number in the interests of making it less confusing for the customers (24 -> 23A -> 24 -> deleted). Routes that morph into something completely different with no change in number "to better serve the area covered" (88, 67). And the best one of all -- raising the fare while decreasing service. This one is supposed to increase farebox revenue. Of course, they forgot to account for the more than 40% decrease in ridership that resulted from that one.

No doubt, management will soon publish a glowing report of its findings from these public hearings complete with a declaration of renewed commitment to the public interest. And, no doubt, they will continue with business as usual.

Senator Feinstein's Position on Transportation Bill

2004-03-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

I received the following letter from Diane Feinstein in response to sending her email in support of the Transportation Bill:

March 4, 2004

Dear [Name Withheld]:


Thank you for your letter expressing your views on

the Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21). I appreciate you taking the time to write and I

welcome the opportunity to respond.

        The Senate passed the
Transportation Reauthorization Bill

(S. 1072) on February 12, 2004. Although this bill is certainly
not

perfect, I voted in favor of it because it provides valuable funding

for California's highways and public transportation needs.
Without

appropriate funding, I worry that California's infrastructure will not

be able to accommodate its increasing population or enable the

movement of commerce necessary to fuel the economies of both our

State and nation.

      I am pleased that this bill increases
California's proportion of

Federal highway funds over the next six years. In fact, the
increase

of $6 billion over six years is the largest increase of funds for

California since I have been in the Senate. In addition, the bill

almost doubles the amount of federal dollars available for

California's public transit needs. I hope that this additional
funding

will enable our State to better meet the needs that you and hundreds

of other Californians have outlined in your letters.

        Again, thank you for
writing. If you have any questions or

concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C.

office at (202) 224-3841.




Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein


United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Further information about my position on issues of concern to
California and the

Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/.
You can also

receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at

http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

Look for New Nickels in the Farebox

2004-03-04T10:28:00.000-08:00

Mercury News | 03/04/2004 | Nickel makeover is first in 66 years:

New nickels honoring the 1803 Louisiana Purchase will soon be clinking in cash registers and jangling in pockets. It's the first makeover for the five-cent piece in 66 years.
The back of the new coins look different, while the front looks the same, retaining the image of Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States.
Millions of the new nickels have been shipped to the Federal Reserve, supplier of the nation's cash. They should start showing up in change in several weeks, officials of the U.S. Mint said...
Another nickel honoring the 1804-1806 Lewis and Clark expedition will be released in the late summer or early fall, Mint officials say.

Prop. 56 Defeated (I know, it's old news)

2004-03-04T10:03:00.000-08:00

But at least the voters didn't make it easy for legislators to raise taxes. Sure, they would have been required to balance the budget, but it would have been easier for them to do so by raising taxes, rather than by curbing spending.

Solar Powered Light Rail in Santa Cruz

2004-03-03T15:22:00.000-08:00

Live from the Third Rail:

When You Go To Santa Cruz, Be Sure To Take The SolTrain Mercury News reports that the future of mass transit is in Santa Cruz County, California:
As Silicon Valley bemoans falling ridership on its light-rail system, Santa Cruz County is quietly becoming an incubator for Jetsons-like 21st-century transportation systems. Grass-roots groups say they've seen the future of public transit -- and it's not near the chips. It's near the beach.
The SolTrain would be a solar-powered ultra-light rail train. Designed to run on normal-gauge track, this single-cab train would carry around 20 people.
And it may become a reality. The SolTrain group is presenting a plan to the county's Regional Transportation Commission to use the SolTrain for a proposed tourist line.

I wonder how they expect it to run at night or on cloudy days.

Measure 2 Passes

2004-03-03T09:51:00.000-08:00

Tri-Valley Herald Online - Local & Regional News: "Tolls to increase from $2 to $3 on Bay Area spans on July 1"

It appears that the regional transportation measure to improve roads,
bridges, and rail service passed by a respectable margin, 61 percent to
39 percent. Opponents may fight the outcome:

"Opponent Ken Hambrick, of the Alliance of Conta Costa
Taxpayers, was not surprised at the results.

" 'They had all the firepower, all the money and all the big
names. If we
had had half the money they did, we would have beat this," he said,
noting that voters were unaware of the measure because of coverage of
the big state ballot measures.

" 'This is not over,' he vowed, explaining that opponents are
looking at possible legal challenges of the measure."

VTA Seeking Comments on Long-Range Plans

2004-03-03T09:26:00.000-08:00

Morgan Hill Times

Every three years the board revises its 30-year 25-year plan for transportation
management in Santa Clara County. Meetings are scheduled for the
following times and locations:

style="width: 80%; text-align: left;">

tonight	6-8 p.m.	Milpitas at the GreatMall of the Bay Area, Community Room, Entrance 1, near Starbucks
Wednesday	6-8 p.m.	Martin Luther King Jr. Library meeting room, Suite B (225), Second Floor, 150 E. San Fernando, San Jose
Mon., Mar. 8	6-8 p.m.	Mountain View City Hall, Council Chambers, 500 Castro St.
Tue., Mar. 9	6-8 p.m.	In Spanish at the Mayfair Community Center, 2039 Kammerer Ave., San Jose
Wed., Mar. 10	6-8 p.m.	Campbell Library, Community Room, 77 Harrison Ave., Campbell
Thu., Mar. 11	6-8 p.m.	In the council chambers at Morgan Hill City Hall, 17555 Peak Ave.

Written comments can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to:

VTA Customer Service

3331 North
First St.

San Jose, CA 95134-1927

(408) 321-7576

vtp2030@vta.org.

You can read about VTA's plan at the VTP
2030 web site.

Reminder to Vote on Tuesday

2004-03-01T14:23:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is super Tuesday. Get out and vote! While you are considering
which empty suit to vote for, remember that there is a regional
transportation measure on the ballot -- Measure 2. I href="http://vtadriversroom.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_vtadriversroom_archive.html#107715384834148638">posted
a short entry a while back about it.

It's another big spending measure with no guarantee of sufficient funds
for completing it. It could bankrupt VTA -- not that the board needs
any help with that.

Hey, I just had an idea. Maybe I should be writing these posts in red
ink. You know -- as a statement about VTA's unending quest to run the
transit system into the ground. What do you think?

New Commenting Feature

2004-02-29T18:52:00.000-08:00

I just added a new feature to this site. You will notice a link at the bottom of each post for adding comments. If you click that link you will be able to add your own comments to whatever I post. There is still a discussion forum separate from this feature, which you can get to by clicking "The Driver's Room Forum" link in the right column of the front page.

Update (March 1, 2004): You
can also enter your email address to receive a once-per-day email with
a summary of that day's posts. Your address will be kept private.

Leap Day

2004-02-29T09:33:00.000-08:00

Leap year comes roughly every four years. Today is the extra day added
to leap years, February 29th. The reason for leap year is that a year
is
about a quarter day longer than 365 days. Not exactly a quarter day,
but almost.

To compensate for the "almost" part, a complex formula was introduced
to determine in which years to add an extra day.
It goes like this ("mod" stands for the modulo function, which is the
remainder after dividing two integers):

if ((year mod 4) = 0) and ((year

mod 100) <> 0) then

leap year

else if ((year mod 400) = 0) then

leap year

end if

The idea here is that years evenly divisible by 4 are leap years as
long as they are not also evenly divisible by 100, unless they are also
evenly divisible by 400.

So the year 2000 was a leap year even though it was evenly divisible by
100, because it was also evenly divisible by 400. This is an unusual
occurrence. The years 1900, 1800, and 1700 were not leap years. They
were not evenly divisible by 400, but were evenly divisible by 100.

You can read more about leap year by href="http://www.google.com/search?q=leap+year">searching Google.

The Coming Year

2004-02-28T23:04:00.000-08:00

I can't help wondering what will happen to VTA in the coming year.
Already there have been two layoffs, and a round of fare increases,
with more increases to come next January.

Will the board see reason? Are they so backed against the wall that any
reasonable move means slitting their own throats?

I can't help but feel anxiety when I see the new light rail under
construction and read about the $52
million they allocated for studying extending BART to San Jose,
while the state and federal governments cut VTA's funding because of
poor performance--money they were counting on to revitalize their
projects and keep promises made to measure A voters.

While they eliminate "positions"
at River Oaks and shift people around, drivers are in real fear for
their jobs. You may have noticed some new faces in the office at your
yard. That is a person who's position at River Oaks was " style="font-style: italic;">eliminated". Notice that style="font-weight: bold;">they were not eliminated--just their
position.

No mention is ever made of the new position created for them, or of the
"vacant" position they filled.
Just that their old position was eliminated, as if that means they were
laid off. VTA always seems to have enough vacant positions to shift
themselves into when it is time to eliminate.

Meanwhile, service gets cut, drivers lose their jobs, fares go up, and
big spending continues--as planned.

Comments Welcome

2004-02-26T07:25:00.000-08:00

I welcome your comments. You can post them either in href="http://penguiniator.proboards29.com/">The Driver's Room Forum,
or email them to me using the link at the bottom of this page.

I am intersted in knowing how you feel about the recently voted
contract. What good do you think it will do the membership? What
problems with it do you see? Did the union represent your interests
adequately? Is VTA doing all it should to streamline its organization?
What more could they do?

Public Perception: Incongruent Attitudes Toward VTA Drivers

2004-02-24T11:36:00.000-08:00

Mercury News: Bay Area news, technology, jobs, cars & real estate

In a letter to the Mercury News Jennifer Novak of San Jose complains about a VTA bus driver proceeding through an intersection where she had stopped for an approaching ambulance. She poses her letter as a question about traffic law, but what is apparent from her letter is her desire to elicit a response from the Mercury condemning VTA drivers:

Q I know you're supposed to stop and move out of the way of emergency vehicles, but it seems I could use a finer understanding. Could you shed your wisdom on the following situation?

I was stopped on Alum Rock Avenue at King Road. The light turned green, but I thought I heard a siren... Believing that I'm required by law to wait, I stopped at the green light. To my dismay, cars in the lane next to me did not stop, including a VTA bus...

Were the other drivers, especially the VTA driver, justified in continuing through the green light in front of an oncoming ambulance?

As was pointed out in the Mercury's response, it is very possible that the VTA driver was unaware of the approaching ambulance. Jennifer, though, was itching for a good VTA driver bashing. In her letter she seems willing to excuse the drivers of other vehicles, but expects VTA drivers to be infinitely and always aware of everything around them. While I agree that bus drivers must be more aware of their surroundings than other drivers, I would probably disagree with Jennifer as to why.

I think bus drivers need greater awareness because there are so many bad drivers on the road who do not even see buses. Evidence of this is abundant in the accident reports of bus drivers who report the other driver stating that they did not see the bus before colliding with it.

Jennifer seems to see bus drivers as bad drivers who must be held to higher standards than everyone else. They are held to higher standards, as evidenced by the greater requirements for licenses to drive buses and the stricter limitations for blood alcohol content.

They are not, however, bad drivers. They could not qualify for a class B commercial license were that the case. Jennifer, and many like her, simply dislike VTA drivers and will latch on to anything as an opportunity to bash them, while excusing the very same behavior in others.

Live from the Third Rail ( A transit blog with wide coverage)

2004-02-23T22:46:00.000-08:00

Live from the Third Rail: "Is Your Transit Company Going Broke? Ask the Public How to Run It!

This most recent post is interesting, not only because of the similarity to our situation, but because of the novel path being taken to find a solution--listening to their customers.

"The Quebec government has decided that since Montreal Transit is going broke, they're going to turn to the most likely source of innovation -- citizens, according to a Montreal Gazette article:

'Transit bosses said yesterday they'll go along for the ride if the Quebec government wants to consult the public on innovative ways to fund bus, métro and commuter train service.
'But they warned their agencies are running on empty and need government help - and fast - to avert a cash crunch.'

"How exactly does this work? There isn't enough tax money and fare money to support the system, so we're going to ask the private sector for ideas on how to get more money -- without raising taxes or fares. What the heck?"

Overheard in Driver's Room

2004-02-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

Layover.com: forums: "The following is a snippet of conversation heard in the driver's room. I was a moment shared between an older driver and a rookie.

Older driver:
'I only ever ground gears once and the owner of the truck rapped me on the knuckles with a tire bat. I learned not to make that mistake again.'

Rookie:
'Imagine how much you could have learned if he took you out for the full beating.'"

Fare to Go Up in January

2004-02-23T15:18:00.000-08:00

The Dispatch

VTA is planning to raise fares again on January 1, 2005.

"Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will likely raise its adult, one-way fare from $1.50 to $1.75 and its youth fare from $1.25 to $1.50. A one-way adult express fare would go up 50 cents, from $3 to $3.50. Day passes, which cost the same as three one-way fares, would go up correspondingly...

“'We think they’re fair,' said Gage, who is also a county supervisor."

VTA is planning its usual public hearings from March 15-18. The article also stated that VTA plans to raise fares annually from now on.

They will do anything except really cut unnecessary costs where they lie--bloated administration.

Invitation to Publish

2004-02-23T11:15:00.000-08:00

If you would like your concerns aired, please email me using the link at the bottom of this page with the content you would like to see posted here. You can send anything from observations of questionable practices of supervisors, managers, and dispatchers to announcements for events and so forth.

Remember, there is also a forum attached to this web site where you can discuss anything that concerns you without needing to rely on me to post it for you.