SCVTARU Alert: Fight VTA's Latest Tax Waste Proposal!
Eugene Bradley
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/vtameetings/vtaboard-10072004.html
--eugene
========== FORWARDED SCVTARU ACTION ALERT ==========
HELP FIGHT VTA'S LATEST ATTEMPT TO WASTE YOUR TAX
DOLLARS
We Say to VTA: Best Way To Enhance Your Public Image:
Repeal the Fare Hike You Approved in June
Background
==========
You already know about the transit service cuts and
fare hikes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) has made since 2001. Recently, the
Santa Clara County Grand Jury recommended that VTA
disband its Board of Directors.
Now, the VTA wants to waste another $7.7 million of
your tax dollars (and transit fares) in an effort to
improve its public image. Worse, the money will also
be used in an effort to get you to vote for another
transit sales tax, possibly in November 2006. This
despite the fact that VTA has nearly a $100 million
deficit on a $328 million budget to keep its buses and
light rail running.
Two excellent stories in early September by
investigative reporter Barry Witt in the San Jose
Mercury News give all the sordid details - even as VTA
continues to state that the money is only to "educate
the public."
The media attention given to this story was so
intense, the VTA Board had to back away from the
proposal at its September 2 Board meeting.
Who Benefits?
=============
The following groups BENEFIT from VTA's latest
proposed waste of your tax dollars:
* Catapult Strategies - with offices in San Jose and
Alexandria, VA. Its CEO is Jude Barry, former chief of
staff to San Jose Mayor (and VTA Board member) Ron
Gonzales. Mr. Barry ran the (in)famous 2000 Measure A
"BART Tax" campaign. Catapult's clients include BART
and the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Their specialty is in press relations.
* Burson-Marsteller - with offices worldwide including
one in Los Angeles. According to Barry Witt's
articles, VTA spends nearly $200,000 of your tax
dollars on this firm, which lobbies for federal
funding for VTA in Washington, DC. Public affairs and
media "spin" are amongst their specialties.
* Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates - with
offices in Oakland, Santa Monica, and Madison, WI.
They were the public relations machine behind the
(in)famous 2000 Measure A "BART Tax" campaign as well
as the 1/2-cent sales tax for transportation in Santa
Clara County in 1984. They were also the public
relations machine behind the San Jose Airport
Expansion Initiative in 1999. Using surveys and focus
groups, their client base include BART and the City of
San Jose.
* The IW Group - with offices based in San Francisco,
Los Angeles, and New York. Their specialty is public
relations in traditional Asian languages. For Santa
Clara County, this firm might perform surveys and
focus groups in Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean,
and Tagalog.
* Public Affairs Management - with offices in
Philadelphia, PA and throughout the East Coast. They
do government lobbying and other legislative advocacy.
Clientele is based on the East Coast but includes
Wal-Mart, BFI Waste Systems, and Novartis. Their
specialize in media damage control for their
clientele. From their web site: "Public Affairs
Management LLC develops proactive communications
strategies to help prevent, minimize or quickly
diffuse difficult situations...Our principals serve or
have served in local, state and federal government
positions."
* Thier PR - small office in San Francisco but without
a web site. They specialize in community outreach and
press relations. Named after its CEO, Holli Thier,
former President of the League of Women Voters who ran
unsuccesfully for the 13th State Assembly in San
Francisco. Listed in VTA's Prospective Vendors web
page.
Who Loses?
==========
The following groups _LOSE OUT_ from VTA's latest
proposed waste of your tax dollars:
* Santa Clara County Taxpayers. Many of the firms due
to work on VTA's proposed public relations expenditure
have offices outside Santa Clara County. This means
that the vast majority of the $7.7 million of your tax
dollars will benefit the local economies in Oakland,
Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC -
enhancing their local economies at the expense of
Santa Clara County's economic recovery.
* Bus and light rail commuters. SCVTARU says there is
a better and cheaper way for VTA to enhance its public
image: repeal the fare hike its Board of Directors
approved in June. $5.5 of the $7.7 million of your tax
dollars can be used to offset the fiscal gains
VTA claims to make upon its latest fare hike its Board
of Directors approved back in June. That same $7.7
million of your tax dollars could have also been used
to restore some of the transit service VTA has slashed
since 2001.
What Can I Do About This Latest Attempt To Waste My
Tax Dollars?
===================================================
1. Contact the VTA Board member for your city or area:
City of San Jose
----------------
Cindy Chavez, City Council Member
(cindy....@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-5231)
David Cortese, City Council Member
(dave.c...@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-5242)
Pat Dando, City Council Member (pat....@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-5251)
Ron Gonzales, Mayor (Mayor...@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-4237)
Forrest Williams, City Council Member
(forrest....@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-4282)
Ken Yeager(Alternate), City Council Member
(ken.y...@ci.sj.ca.us)
(408-277-5166)
Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
Santa Clara
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Casas, Los Altos Council Member
(dca...@pepalum.com)
Dean Chu, Vice Mayor of Sunnyvale
(Council...@yahoo.com)
John McLemore, Santa Clara City Council Member
(jmcl...@aol.com)
(408-984-3250)
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Pirzynski (VTA Board Vice Chair), Los Gatos City
Council Member
(jo...@joep4lg.com)
Milpitas
--------
Patricia Dixon, Vice Mayor (pdi...@ci.milpitas.ca.gov)
(408-586-3028)
County Supervisors
------------------
Don Gage (VTA Board Chair), District 1 (Los Gatos,
Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill, South San Jose)
(don....@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us)
(408-299-3273)
Pete McHugh, District 3 (Milpitas, North San Jose,
Sunnyvale)
(pete....@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us) (408-299-2443)
2. ATTEND and SPEAK OUT at the VTA Board meeting on
October 7, 2004 at 5:30pm at 70 W. Hedding Street in
San Jose. Tips on handling VTA Board meetings can be
found at http://www.vtaridersunion.org/. VTA's
latest tax waste proposal is item #24 on their
agenda.
Talking points:
---------------
* A cheaper and more effective way that VTA can
enhance its public image: repeal the fare hike it
approved in June. It can be done at 3/4 of the
proposed $7.7 million expenditure on public relations
firms. By repealing the fare hike, VTA will show the
taxpayers that it is committed relieving the
automobile gridlock that has returned to the county.
With stable public transit fares enabling more people
to use public transit as an alternative to automobile
gridlock, it can enable the county's economy to recover
even faster.
* The very legality of using public tax dollars to
fund campaigns for transit tax measures has not been
questioned. Where have similar initiatives like what
VTA wants to undertake occurred, and have they
been successful?
* Many of the firms involved with VTA's "public
relations expenditure" proposal are outside Santa
Clara County. If approved, this money will benefit
those communities at the expense of the County's
economic recovery.
See you at Thursday's meeting...
=====
Eugene Bradley
Founder, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/
Yahoo!/AOL/MSN messenger: eegenebradley
Jack May
"Eugene Bradley" <eegene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20df4c0b.04100...@posting.google.com...
> Now, the VTA wants to waste another $7.7 million of
> your tax dollars (and transit fares) in an effort to
> improve its public image. Worse, the money will also
> be used in an effort to get you to vote for another
> transit sales tax, possibly in November 2006. This
> despite the fact that VTA has nearly a $100 million
> deficit on a $328 million budget to keep its buses and
> light rail running.
I think they backed off on the $7.7M because it was obvious to the Board
that the money was for funding political actions to get approval of the half
cent sales tax increase in November 2006. I don't think there is any plan
to rescind the Nov 06 vote.
I have not seen any recent polls, but from casual conversations with people
(of course not a scientific poll) I am still hearing a lot of support for
BART to San Jose. I find it incredible that people still have not learned
the lesson of all that money that has been spent on rail with essentially no
benefit from those expenditures.
Mike O'Dorney
> (of course not a scientific poll) I am still hearing a lot of support for
> BART to San Jose.
The engineering for the Warm Springs extension is proceeding along,
and there is a lot of interest in building the San Jose extension
(Grimmer, southward) in stages. The "surface" part, which would
connect Warm Springs to Beryessa, would have 80 percent of the
ridership. Primarily commuters connecting to light rail at Great
Mall, and headed to Golden Triangle businesses.
With 20 percent vacancy in the Golden Triangle, don't look for a big
push for BART, until the buildings start filling up. But, once the
buildings fill up, (and the roads fill up), the push to build at least
one segment of SJ BART will pick up.
william lynch
modo...@aol.com wrote on 10/8/04 9:41 AM:
Only building as far as the Great Mall/LRT line would also cost less
than a billion, requiring no federal or state funds, and leaving a
bunch for more busses and light rail.
Jack May
"Mike O'Dorney" <modo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> With 20 percent vacancy in the Golden Triangle, don't look for a big
> push for BART, until the buildings start filling up. But, once the
> buildings fill up, (and the roads fill up), the push to build at least
> one segment of SJ BART will pick up.
BART will only get about 1% of the drivers out of their cars. The dot-com
bubble increased traffic by 10%. The present estimate is traffic will
increase 40% to 80%. BART with it insignificant pull of people out of
their cars will do almost nothing to solve the transportation problems.
BART will take away most of the money that can be used to reduce traffic
congestion and will produce the most massive traffic jams that have ever
been produced in Santa Clara County. BART is not a solution. BART is a
problem.
You seem to indicate that you have totally bought into the politicians lies
that are supporting BART. You are probably correct that Santa Clara county
is filled with gullible people wanting to build BART and will be shocked in
their gullibility when traffic jams become unbearable if BART is built.
VTA has found that every stop light on every expressway can be removed with
mini under or over passes to massively increase capacity for $2.5B.
Expensive but far more productive at reducing congestion and much cheaper
than BART.
If voters were told about options instead of withholding what VTA knows as
the Grand Jury found, I doubt there would be any support for BART except
among knuckle draggers that want to return to the 19th century and all those
trains.
Jack May
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8C682F.405D%x@y.z...
> in article 4a5d976e.04100...@posting.google.com, Mike O'Dorney
> at
> modo...@aol.com wrote on 10/8/04 9:41 AM:
> Only building as far as the Great Mall/LRT line would also cost less
> than a billion, requiring no federal or state funds, and leaving a
> bunch for more busses and light rail.
Spend billions to build more little used busses and light rail along with a
little used BART is what you want? Are you totally incapable of
understanding the massive failure of what you want?
william lynch
wrote on 10/8/04 9:43 PM:
Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
traffic will decrease through simple attrition. The real problem
here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
businesses to feed your habit any more.
william lynch
jack...@comcast.net wrote on 10/8/04 9:40 PM:
>
> "Mike O'Dorney" <modo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> With 20 percent vacancy in the Golden Triangle, don't look for a big
>> push for BART, until the buildings start filling up. But, once the
>> buildings fill up, (and the roads fill up), the push to build at least
>> one segment of SJ BART will pick up.
>
> BART will only get about 1% of the drivers out of their cars. The dot-com
> bubble increased traffic by 10%. The present estimate is traffic will
> increase 40% to 80%. BART with it insignificant pull of people out of
> their cars will do almost nothing to solve the transportation problems.
And your solution is what, increase highway widths by 40-80%? You
do realize that *none* of the overpasses could handle this? So
your "solution" would probably cost into the tens of billions. Not
to mention the drmatically reduced tax base, after you have bulldozed
enough homes and businesses to fit the ROW. In the real world this
is known as "broken brain syndrome".
>
> BART will take away most of the money that can be used to reduce traffic
> congestion and will produce the most massive traffic jams that have ever
> been produced in Santa Clara County. BART is not a solution. BART is a
> problem.
BART will *cause* traffic? Those must be good drugs out there.
>
> You seem to indicate that you have totally bought into the politicians lies
> that are supporting BART. You are probably correct that Santa Clara county
> is filled with gullible people wanting to build BART and will be shocked in
> their gullibility when traffic jams become unbearable if BART is built.
BART will do nothing but give an alternative to the choke point that
is the Fremont-Milpitas corridor. But it will be fun to watch the
SUV morons idling in traffic, with gas at $5.00 per gallon. But the
traffic jams will be intolerable with or without.
>
> VTA has found that every stop light on every expressway can be removed with
> mini under or over passes to massively increase capacity for $2.5B.
> Expensive but far more productive at reducing congestion and much cheaper
> than BART.
This is the stupidest stat ever. There are over 200 traffic lights on
the county's expressways. This gives you $12.5 million per overpass.
I don't think so. Plus, the thousands of homes and business that would
have to be removed for this. Don't you idiots stop and consider the
logistics of these stupid plans?
>
> If voters were told about options instead of withholding what VTA knows as
> the Grand Jury found, I doubt there would be any support for BART except
> among knuckle draggers that want to return to the 19th century and all those
> trains.
There are morons like you in Roadshow every week. The rest of us just
laugh at them.
Nicholas Byram
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D4FEA.425E%x@y.z...
> in article L%J9d.95359$He1.27487@attbi_s01, Jack May at
> jack...@comcast.net
> wrote on 10/8/04 9:43 PM:
>
>> a
>> little used BART is what you want? Are you totally incapable of
>> understanding the massive failure of what you want?
>
> Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
> roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
> and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
> traffic will decrease through simple attrition. The real problem
> here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
> to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
> to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
As opposed to your solution of building transit systems that won't be used,
and we will still need to handle more and more cars as people move here (or
even worse, move to my area and commute long distances to your area because
you won't build the housing over in your town).
> Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
> precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
> businesses to feed your habit any more.
And whom, praytell, is suggesting that? There is no new road in your area
where this is even being proposed, let alone going to happen. There is still
plenty of space in the medians of most freeways for lane additions, and
where there isn't, there is interchange and ramp redesign. All for a
fraction of BART to San Jose, which, as planned, won't go to the Golden
Triangle anyway!
Nick Byram (Bay Area Exile)
Antelope, CA
"Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal independence -
and both are targets of hostility and even hatred by those who are convinced
that they can run other people's lives better than those people can run
their own lives. All sorts of claims are made against cars and guns, without
the slightest interest in checking those claims against readily available
facts." -- Thomas Sowell
Jack May
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D4FEA.425E%x@y.z...
> Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
> roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
> and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
> traffic will decrease through simple attrition.
I didn't propose building any roads. I said one solution is to eliminate
the stop lights on the existing expressways by building mini under passes
and over passes. That is like the Central expressway going under Fair Oaks.
You go around the block to get onto another expressway. You don't have to
tear down building in most cases.
All you did was show you have limited capability to read or think. You just
put out your standard cliché that was unrelated to what was being said.
>The real problem
> here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
> to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
> to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
Where were the freeways built in the 1800's with lots of cars driving on
them? The direction we are going is with high tech electronics in cars to
greatly increase the capacity of existing roads without increasing the
number of lanes. Next fall, about 5,000 people will attend a world meeting
of a Intelligent Transportation System conference in the Bay Area. That is
the future, not some old trains that people avoid using.
Almost $100B public and private funds are expected to be spent in the next
ten or so years to develop ITS technology. Very little of that development
will be useful for transit like BART. BART and other urban rail is a dead
end that does not prepare us for the 21st century.
BTW since you are totally confused about the stages of technology. Rail is
19th century technology and BART is just normal (but stupidly non standard
rail) with some better looking sheet metal.
Rail became obsolete and unsatisfactory for the needs of society in the
early part of the 20th century. Rail is a much worse match to the needs of
society now and in the future
Another BTW, we are talking about Silicon Valley Transportation. Why would
anyone in Silicon Valley believe that all transportation technology stopped
developing almost a hundred years ago and we should go back to that antique
technology instead of using present and future technology?
>
> Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
> precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
> businesses to feed your habit any more.
No hissy fit because that is not the plan. You are just talking about your
ignorance of transportation.
Jack May
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D53B0.425F%x@y.z...
> in article hZJ9d.227349$3l3.147446@attbi_s03, Jack May at
> And your solution is what, increase highway widths by 40-80%? You
> do realize that *none* of the overpasses could handle this? So
> your "solution" would probably cost into the tens of billions. Not
> to mention the drmatically reduced tax base, after you have bulldozed
> enough homes and businesses to fit the ROW. In the real world this
> is known as "broken brain syndrome".
Of course not as I explained in my previous reply to you
> BART will *cause* traffic? Those must be good drugs out there.
I did not say that. There is a limited amount of money that people are
willing to pay in taxes to support transportation. If you spend more money
on rail, there is essentially less money to spend on roads.
Official projects are for the number of commuters to increase by 40% to 80%
by around 2025. If you spend most of your money on BART, only about 1% of
that increase will be added with far less money available to solve the
massive traffic congestion problems that will occur because of commuter
growth.
> BART will do nothing but give an alternative to the choke point that
> is the Fremont-Milpitas corridor. But it will be fun to watch the
> SUV morons idling in traffic, with gas at $5.00 per gallon. But the
> traffic jams will be intolerable with or without.
BART does not provide any real alternative to choke points because it will
not get enough people out of their cars to make any significant improvement.
If we spend the available funds on solutions that do make significant
improvements in capacity, we will not have the massive traffic jams.
BTW gas is more than $5 per gallon in Europe, but by far the most travel is
done by cars not by transit as you probably believe. You also assume that
if there is a shortage of fuel that no one in the US is going to try to get
incredibly rich by selling an affordable solution to that problem. Not
exactly a rational view.
> This is the stupidest stat ever. There are over 200 traffic lights on
> the county's expressways. This gives you $12.5 million per overpass.
> I don't think so. Plus, the thousands of homes and business that would
> have to be removed for this. Don't you idiots stop and consider the
> logistics of these stupid plans?
The underpasses for example are just short tunnels under the existing
expressway possible every mile or so, not at every stop light. Don't we
have freeway on ramps and off ramps ever mile or so now instead of every
block or so as you imply.
The estimate are from VTA that did a long study to evaluate this approach to
reducing congestion. A VTA person told me they found it is the most cost
effective way of producing large increases of realistic capacity they had
ever analyzed for Santa Clara County.
> There are morons like you in Roadshow every week. The rest of us just
> laugh at them.
>
So far you have shown a very remarkable lack of ability to understand even
simple concepts. You definitely have nothing to brag about.
william lynch
wrote on 10/9/04 7:03 PM:
>
> "william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D4FEA.425E%x@y.z...
>
>> Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
>> roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
>> and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
>> traffic will decrease through simple attrition.
>
> I didn't propose building any roads. I said one solution is to eliminate
> the stop lights on the existing expressways by building mini under passes
> and over passes. That is like the Central expressway going under Fair Oaks.
> You go around the block to get onto another expressway. You don't have to
> tear down building in most cases.
Central Expressway was incredibly expensive for the time, and the
recessed portion has a ROW double the width of Lawrence, Capitol,
Almaden, Foothill, Oregon or Montague Expressways. And you claim
that such a thing can be duplicated for $12 million per signal?
I don't think so.
>
> All you did was show you have limited capability to read or think. You just
> put out your standard cliché that was unrelated to what was being said.
>
There were specific points made by myself which you snipped out
to make your fairy tale look better.
>
>> The real problem
>> here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
>> to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
>> to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
>
> Where were the freeways built in the 1800's with lots of cars driving on
> them?
Freeways are virtually the same technology as the Roman system of
roads. There are even ruins of vehicle overpasses in Italy. And
cars were invented in the 1870s. The first major car race was in
1894. People laugh at you when you insist that this is new tech.
> The direction we are going is with high tech electronics in cars to
> greatly increase the capacity of existing roads without increasing the
> number of lanes. Next fall, about 5,000 people will attend a world meeting
> of a Intelligent Transportation System conference in the Bay Area. That is
> the future, not some old trains that people avoid using.
While you are completely oblivious to the fact that much of the
same technology could be used to increase train capacity, without
the corresponding increase in air pollution, noise, and danger to
pedestrians and bicyclists that your "solution" would bring.
>
> Almost $100B public and private funds are expected to be spent in the next
> ten or so years to develop ITS technology. Very little of that development
> will be useful for transit like BART. BART and other urban rail is a dead
> end that does not prepare us for the 21st century.
Except that it is quiet, creates much lower pollution than cars,
often has an exclusive ROW, and is the only way to move large
numbers of people when air transport breaks down. Other than
those four *huge* points you don't sound ignorant.
>
> BTW since you are totally confused about the stages of technology. Rail is
> 19th century technology and BART is just normal (but stupidly non standard
> rail) with some better looking sheet metal.
Except for the internal combustion engine (invented in the 1700s)
cars are basically a Roman era invention.
>
> Rail became obsolete and unsatisfactory for the needs of society in the
> early part of the 20th century. Rail is a much worse match to the needs of
> society now and in the future
>
> Another BTW, we are talking about Silicon Valley Transportation. Why would
> anyone in Silicon Valley believe that all transportation technology stopped
> developing almost a hundred years ago and we should go back to that antique
> technology instead of using present and future technology?
No, which is why many think of you as stupid for insisting that
rail has not updated, or does not have advantages.
>> Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
>> precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
>> businesses to feed your habit any more.
>
> No hissy fit because that is not the plan. You are just talking about your
> ignorance of transportation.
>
I had a specific discussion about the costs involved, and you snipped
that out because it would have been embarrassing, and would have shot
holes in your argument. Which amounts to another hissy fit.
william lynch
jack...@comcast.net wrote on 10/9/04 7:28 PM:
>
> "william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D53B0.425F%x@y.z...
>> in article hZJ9d.227349$3l3.147446@attbi_s03, Jack May at
>
>> And your solution is what, increase highway widths by 40-80%? You
>> do realize that *none* of the overpasses could handle this? So
>> your "solution" would probably cost into the tens of billions. Not
>> to mention the drmatically reduced tax base, after you have bulldozed
>> enough homes and businesses to fit the ROW. In the real world this
>> is known as "broken brain syndrome".
>
> Of course not as I explained in my previous reply to you
>
You haven't explained diddly.
>
>> BART will *cause* traffic? Those must be good drugs out there.
>
> I did not say that. There is a limited amount of money that people are
> willing to pay in taxes to support transportation. If you spend more money
> on rail, there is essentially less money to spend on roads.
You said exactly that. You are such a fucking nazi. Here is your
exact quote, which you snipped out like a total sleazy coward:
"
BART will take away most of the money that can be used to reduce traffic
congestion and will produce the most massive traffic jams that have ever
been produced in Santa Clara County. BART is not a solution. BART is a
problem.
"
That is the entire paragraph, so you cannot claim that this is
taken out of context. You are worse than Ric Silver in your
dishonesty. That was low. What a fucking idiot.
>
> Official projects are for the number of commuters to increase by 40% to 80%
> by around 2025. If you spend most of your money on BART, only about 1% of
> that increase will be added with far less money available to solve the
> massive traffic congestion problems that will occur because of commuter
> growth.
Perhaps if you did something other than attack trains, make stuff
up, cut out parts of the discussion
>
>> BART will do nothing but give an alternative to the choke point that
>> is the Fremont-Milpitas corridor. But it will be fun to watch the
>> SUV morons idling in traffic, with gas at $5.00 per gallon. But the
>> traffic jams will be intolerable with or without.
>
> BART does not provide any real alternative to choke points because it will
> not get enough people out of their cars to make any significant improvement.
> If we spend the available funds on solutions that do make significant
> improvements in capacity, we will not have the massive traffic jams.
Fortunately the voters are not stupid enough to spend more than
four billion on fantasies.
>
> BTW gas is more than $5 per gallon in Europe, but by far the most travel is
> done by cars not by transit as you probably believe.
Most local travel is by car, but with a much higher rate of
transit usage than here. Longer distance travel does have a
majority of transit usage.
> You also assume that
> if there is a shortage of fuel that no one in the US is going to try to get
> incredibly rich by selling an affordable solution to that problem. Not
> exactly a rational view.
And this idiotic statement came from where exactly? How does it
feel to be wildly delusional? I would love for something that
helps the problem. So far I haven't seen anything that will
improve my quality of life, and you haven't offered anything other
than your typical rants against trains.
>
>> This is the stupidest stat ever. There are over 200 traffic lights on
>> the county's expressways. This gives you $12.5 million per overpass.
>> I don't think so. Plus, the thousands of homes and business that would
>> have to be removed for this. Don't you idiots stop and consider the
>> logistics of these stupid plans?
>
> The underpasses for example are just short tunnels under the existing
> expressway possible every mile or so, not at every stop light. Don't we
> have freeway on ramps and off ramps ever mile or so now instead of every
> block or so as you imply.
What do you do with all of the other roads and ramps that do not
happen every mile? This will inconvenience tens of thousands.
Side streets will have to have dozens of homes sharing driveways.
What you are advocating is similar to where Forest Ave. goes
under I-880. Totally unworkable at 50 times your mythical cost.
>
> The estimate are from VTA that did a long study to evaluate this approach to
> reducing congestion. A VTA person told me they found it is the most cost
> effective way of producing large increases of realistic capacity they had
> ever analyzed for Santa Clara County.
Fine, print a link, or give a place where the study is on file.
I bet that you can't, because that would require a real world
embodiment of your fantasyland.
>
>> There are morons like you in Roadshow every week. The rest of us just
>> laugh at them.
>
> So far you have shown a very remarkable lack of ability to understand even
> simple concepts. You definitely have nothing to brag about.
At least I'm not laughed at. There is a reason why no one debates
with you except for your fellow crackpots. Unless you provide some
concrete links, and cut with the creative snipping, we are done.
Asshole. And I sincerely mean that you are one.
william lynch
n.b...@comcast.net wrote on 10/9/04 2:49 PM:
>
> "william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8D4FEA.425E%x@y.z...
>> in article L%J9d.95359$He1.27487@attbi_s01, Jack May at
>> jack...@comcast.net
>> wrote on 10/8/04 9:43 PM:
>>
>>> Spend billions to build more little used busses and light rail along with
>>> a
>>> little used BART is what you want? Are you totally incapable of
>>> understanding the massive failure of what you want?
>>
>> Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
>> roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
>> and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
>> traffic will decrease through simple attrition. The real problem
>> here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
>> to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
>> to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
>
> As opposed to your solution of building transit systems that won't be used,
> and we will still need to handle more and more cars as people move here (or
> even worse, move to my area and commute long distances to your area because
> you won't build the housing over in your town).
The fact that anyone uses transit renders your initial statement
completely bogus. Perhaps you can explain how adding the capacity
for more cars on I-280 will sooth your bitterness over having to
leave the BAy Area?
>
>> Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
>> precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
>> businesses to feed your habit any more.
>
> And whom, praytell, is suggesting that?
You and that idiot May.
> There is no new road in your area
> where this is even being proposed, let alone going to happen.
Except for Congressman Richard Pompo's proposed freeway *over*
Mt. Hamilton. The current estimate is 25,000 homes and businesses
moved or destroyed if the link east from I-680 is built. And your
type has been quoted repeatedly about how adding road capacity is
the only solution to transportation problems.
> There is still
> plenty of space in the medians of most freeways for lane additions, and
> where there isn't, there is interchange and ramp redesign.
Sorry to keep interrupting with those pesky facts, but the only
freeway in the South Bay with space remaining in the median is
CA-85. And over the past 20 years we have already spent more
than two billion redesigning and rebuilding almost every
interchange, ramp and freeway. The tax which starts in 21 months
is the third in the series, but the first that will address the
disproportionate spending in favor of roads in the South Bay.
In case you haven't been paying attention (which I strongly
suspect), this included rebuilding 100% of 101 from Cochrane
Rd. to the San Mateo County line, 100% of I-880 north of 1st
St., 100% of I-280 from Meridian to Magdalena, 100% of CA-85
and CA-87, 100% of I-680 north of Capitol, and most of every
expressway.
With nothing but local money, no less. The voters will love the
*stupid* idea of starting the construction all over again. And
paying for it all over again, while wiping out any chance of
alternatives.
> All for a
> fraction of BART to San Jose, which, as planned, won't go to the Golden
> Triangle anyway!
If BART is built only as far as the Great Mall, that fraction
will be about 20/4.
>
> Nick Byram (Bay Area Exile)
> Antelope, CA
>
> "Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal independence -
> and both are targets of hostility and even hatred by those who are convinced
> that they can run other people's lives better than those people can run
> their own lives. All sorts of claims are made against cars and guns, without
> the slightest interest in checking those claims against readily available
> facts." -- Thomas Sowell
That quote is one of the stupidest ever. The only claim about guns
is that they kill. Refute that.
bikerider7
> in article 4a5d976e.04100...@posting.google.com, Mike O'Dorney at
> modo...@aol.com wrote on 10/8/04 9:41 AM:
>
>
> than a billion, requiring no federal or state funds, and leaving a
> bunch for more busses and light rail.
The Warm Springs segment alone is getting dangerously close to
the $1 billion mark.
Just for grins, though, let's compare to the Triangle Transit
Regional Rail project in North Carolina. Like BART-San Jose,
the TTA project involves new track construction in an existing
rail ROW through mostly suburban terrain past a regional airport.
Both projects initiated planning around the same time.
Category BART-San Jose TTA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Length 21 miles 35 miles
Cost $5 billion $724 million
Stations 8 16
Completion Date ??? 2007
Average Speed 35 mph 31 mph
Vehicle type 3rd rail metro DMU
John David Galt
> Let's go 180 here. Your solution is to build ever wider and wider
> roads. This would require bulldozing literally thousands of homes
> and businesses, until enough people have moved out of the area that
> traffic will decrease through simple attrition.
Not necessary. We have yet to start stacking them up four layers high
as they are in Chicago's Loop, but the air space is still available.
> The real problem
> here is that you refuse to understand that building ever wider roads
> to handle more and more cars is nothing but a 19th century solution
> to a 21st century problem. It's been tried, and it doesn't work.
When it was tried (= until roughly the Jerry Brown administration) it
worked perfectly well. Then the building stopped, so now there's 30+
years of population growth to catch up with before it will work again.
That just means we have to get started ASAP.
And your bit about the "19th century" is a laugh. Streetcars are 19th
century. The car didn't come into its own until post-WW2. But now
that we have it and have paid for it, I'll let them take it away when
they pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel.
bikerider7
> >
> > The estimate are from VTA that did a long study to evaluate this approach to
> > reducing congestion. A VTA person told me they found it is the most cost
> > effective way of producing large increases of realistic capacity they had
> > ever analyzed for Santa Clara County.
>
> Fine, print a link, or give a place where the study is on file.
> I bet that you can't, because that would require a real world
> embodiment of your fantasyland.
As usual, he's a bit confused. For one thing, the VTA has absolutely
nothing to do with Santa Clara County expressways. The link you are
looking for is http://expressways.info which has the results of the study
he is probably referring to.
Quick summary: the county is proposing to spend billions not just
on interchanges, but adding lanes. The end result is that they
claim "F" LOS intersections would be improved by 1 or at most 2
letter grades, assuming of course the congestion doesn't just migrate
to the next nearest unimproved intersection (which is what generally
happens).
As well, they have been extremely tight-lipped about what
these new interchanges might look like, what impact they would
have on surrounding property, and what commercial areas would
be cut off.
Jack May
"bikerider7" <bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d35d6005.04101...@posting.google.com...
> william lynch <x@y.z> wrote in message news:<BD8DFCE3.670%x@y.z>...
> nothing to do with Santa Clara County expressways. The link you are
> looking for is http://expressways.info which has the results of the study
> he is probably referring to.
Don't tell me you think VTA is only trains?
> Quick summary: the county is proposing to spend billions not just
> on interchanges, but adding lanes. The end result is that they
> claim "F" LOS intersections would be improved by 1 or at most 2
> letter grades, assuming of course the congestion doesn't just migrate
> to the next nearest unimproved intersection (which is what generally
> happens).
This is not the study I am talking about.
The study you show is one that was in the Mercury News. During a VTA
briefing at the SVMG I asked what if they extended the expressway study to
removing all the stop lights. That question apparently aroused their
curiosity and it looks like they extended the study.
The study you show is where they just tried to reduce the future congestion
at key choke points to tolerable levels. In the study you reference, they
are mainly putting large expensive interchanges between the heaviest traffic
intersections of expressways and major roads. Most of the stop lights
remain which keeps the expressways from reaching a max capacity capability.
It also looks like they want to waste money on a number of failed theories.
I was pulled aside by a VTA person at the end of a transportation meeting
with the MTC. He told me the results that the cost is $2.5B and he said
removing all the stop lights is the most effective capacity increase
approach they had ever studied.
Adding the extra billion to half billion to remove all stop lights can have
a dramatic improvement in the flow of traffic which is easy to understand,
at least by most people.
I have not seen any part of the remove all stoplights study being made
public. Obviously such publicity would have a significant effect on the
popularity of BART to San Jose which is totally unacceptable to the
political power behind BART.
Nicholas Byram
"william lynch" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:BD8E028B.671%x@y.z...
Oh really? Let's see, when talking about fuel for transportation, the
measure of goodness has been miles per gallon for the vehicle. However, the
real measure should be ton miles per gallon or passenger miles per gallon.
Mass transit quotes seat miles per gallon to sell buses and trains. Then
when only a fraction of projected passengers show up, the result is they get
horrible figures based on passenger miles per gallon. Oak Ridge Labs has
published figures on passenger miles per gallon. One of the most efficient
from a fuel stand point, believe it or not, is a 747 aircraft. Mostly
because airlines keep the seats filled with paying passengers.
The public money would have been better spent making the roads more
efficient. Fewer stops, fewer traffic controls. More separations
(underpasses, overpasses) when possible. This also helps the buses move more
quickly. Nothing is sadder to see metro areas (like VTA, or RT here in
Sacramento) shoot their wads on rail systems, then cannibalize their bus
systems and wonder why ridership drops in proportion to population.
> Perhaps you can explain how adding the capacity
> for more cars on I-280 will sooth your bitterness over having to
> leave the BAy Area?
Simple, it will make it easier to come back there to work with business
clients and visit friends and relatives. With the increased road capacity,
the opposition to badly needed housing in the area will diminish.
>>> Throw every type of hissy fit that you want, but you won't get you
>>> precious wider roads. You aren't allowed to destroy homes and
>>> businesses to feed your habit any more.
>>
>> And whom, praytell, is suggesting that?
>
> You and that idiot May.
You really need to read. Name the road that is *seriously* proposed that is
going to do that.
>> There is no new road in your area
>> where this is even being proposed, let alone going to happen.
>
> Except for Congressman Richard Pompo's proposed freeway *over*
> Mt. Hamilton. The current estimate is 25,000 homes and businesses
> moved or destroyed if the link east from I-680 is built. And your
> type has been quoted repeatedly about how adding road capacity is
> the only solution to transportation problems.
Not if the proposed road links up with Route 85 at US 101, or if the
proposed freeway follows the Route 84 alighment (Vallecitos/ Niles
Canyon/Fremont bypass to Dumbarton Bridge, which would be a much easier
grade as well.) Besides, it's REALLY dubious if Pombo would ever get
approval.
Before we get all upset, let's see exactly where the proposed route is.
>> There is still
>> plenty of space in the medians of most freeways for lane additions, and
>> where there isn't, there is interchange and ramp redesign.
>
> Sorry to keep interrupting with those pesky facts, but the only
> freeway in the South Bay with space remaining in the median is
> CA-85.
That's a good distance of road. And what about Route 87 from I-280 South?
Never mind interchange improvements, which improve capacity of existing
lanes...
>And over the past 20 years we have already spent more
> than two billion redesigning and rebuilding almost every
> interchange, ramp and freeway. The tax which starts in 21 months
> is the third in the series, but the first that will address the
> disproportionate spending in favor of roads in the South Bay.
In light of the VTA trolley debacle, such a fatuous statement speaks for
itself.
> In case you haven't been paying attention (which I strongly
> suspect), this included rebuilding 100% of 101 from Cochrane
> Rd. to the San Mateo County line, 100% of I-880 north of 1st
> St., 100% of I-280 from Meridian to Magdalena, 100% of CA-85
> and CA-87, 100% of I-680 north of Capitol, and most of every
> expressway.
>
> With nothing but local money, no less. The voters will love the
> *stupid* idea of starting the construction all over again. And
> paying for it all over again, while wiping out any chance of
> alternatives.
Like what? Trolleys that don't work?
>> All for a
>> fraction of BART to San Jose, which, as planned, won't go to the Golden
>> Triangle anyway!
>
> If BART is built only as far as the Great Mall, that fraction
> will be about 20/4.
Finally, some agreement. That would be less than the horrid plan to go to
downtown, and would at least make the Mountain View trolley extension a bit
more usable for East Bay residents.
You might be surprised to find some people will work with you if you don't
insult them...
>> Nick Byram (Bay Area Exile)
>> Antelope, CA
>>
>> "Cars and guns are both instruments and symbols of personal
>> independence -
>> and both are targets of hostility and even hatred by those who are
>> convinced
>> that they can run other people's lives better than those people can run
>> their own lives. All sorts of claims are made against cars and guns,
>> without
>> the slightest interest in checking those claims against readily available
>> facts." -- Thomas Sowell
>
> That quote is one of the stupidest ever. The only claim about guns
> is that they kill. Refute that.
Yes, guns do kill prowlers, rapists, potential murderers, and any other
potential enemies that may break in or attack you in the street. But I know,
you are going to tell me that all such scum are the product of our unfair
society and it's really our fault, right?
Eugene Bradley
>
> I think they backed off on the $7.7M because it was obvious to the Board
> that the money was for funding political actions to get approval of the half
> cent sales tax increase in November 2006. I don't think there is any plan
> to rescind the Nov 06 vote.
Don't forget that the VTA felt the heat from the local press (for
once) and the public. I have notes from the October 7 VTA Board
meeting on our web site...
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/vtameetings/vtaboard-10072004.html
More heat will be coming ...
> I have not seen any recent polls, but from casual conversations with people
> (of course not a scientific poll) I am still hearing a lot of support for
> BART to San Jose. I find it incredible that people still have not learned
> the lesson of all that money that has been spent on rail with essentially no
> benefit from those expenditures.
Interesting. I just completed the results of an online survey which
gauges people's knowledge of the VTA, its issues, policies, and
leadership. (I posted the URL to the survey a few weeks ago.) About
57 people in all took the survey. Thanks to all who took it.
Some key overall results:
* 92% of those surveyed knew that VTA was managed by a Board of
Directors, but only 37% of those who knew could name the VTA Board
member who represented them.
* When asked whether or not they agreed with the Santa Clara County's
Civil Grand Jury recommendation to delay extending BART to San Jose,
73% of those surveyed agreed with the recommendation.
* 76% of those surveyed agreed with the same Civil Grand Jury report
that the VTA delay design and construction of the San Jose BART
extension to preserve public transit funding throughout the county.
* When asked if they would vote for a ballot measure that would allow
them to directly elect VTA Board members, 74% of those surveyed would
vote for such a ballot measure.
The full, raw results from the survey can be found here:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/statistics/survey2_full_summary.pdf
Results for those who lived in San Jose can be found here:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/statistics/survey2_sj.pdf
and for those who lived outside San Jose:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/statistics/survey2_outside_sj.pdf
It would be cool if someone can identify a tool that can translate PDF
text and graphics to (fully accessible) HTML ...
Eugene Bradley
Founder, Santa Clara VTA Riders Union
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/
Yahoo!/AOL messenger: eegenebradley
Jack May
> Don't forget that the VTA felt the heat from the local press (for
> once) and the public. I have notes from the October 7 VTA Board
> meeting on our web site...
>
> http://www.vtaridersunion.org/vtameetings/vtaboard-10072004.html
Yes, I think the heat from the press and the grand jury was an upsetting
surprise to VTA and the SVMG.
>
> More heat will be coming ...
I can only hope so, but I am seeing heavy cover their ass statements out of
VTA and the SVMG. If their poll show there is a chance of winning the half
cent sales tax increase vote, they will pat themselves on the back and
nothing will change.
Your view and my view of needed change are probably opposite in direction,
but when there are shake ups, at least some times people begin thinking
independently again instead of just going along to get along.
> Interesting. I just completed the results of an online survey which
> gauges people's knowledge of the VTA, its issues, policies, and
> leadership. (I posted the URL to the survey a few weeks ago.) About
> 57 people in all took the survey. Thanks to all who took it.
>
> Some key overall results:
>
> * 92% of those surveyed knew that VTA was managed by a Board of
> Directors, but only 37% of those who knew could name the VTA Board
> member who represented them.
>
> * When asked whether or not they agreed with the Santa Clara County's
> Civil Grand Jury recommendation to delay extending BART to San Jose,
> 73% of those surveyed agreed with the recommendation.
>
> * 76% of those surveyed agreed with the same Civil Grand Jury report
> that the VTA delay design and construction of the San Jose BART
> extension to preserve public transit funding throughout the county.
>
> * When asked if they would vote for a ballot measure that would allow
> them to directly elect VTA Board members, 74% of those surveyed would
> vote for such a ballot measure.
Certainly no where near a scientific poll, but interesting that maybe, just
maybe there is a change in the attitudes of voters.