Daily Post (Palo Alto, CA)
Here’s how to stop bus-only lanes
Dave Price
Published: August 1, 2016
The bureaucrats at VTA tell us all the time that they’re trying to reduce traffic congestion, and all they need is more money from our wallets. In November, VTA wants to raise the sales tax in Santa Clara County from the current 8.75% to 9.25%. It will be the third sales tax increase for transportation in the county since 2000.
At the same time, VTA is refusing to back down from a plan that will cause traffic congestion and add delays to the lives of nearly everyone. VTA intends to spend close to a quarter of a billion dollars to eliminate a lane in each direction on El Camino from Mountain View to San Jose, and replace those lanes with bus-only lanes.
This project — called bus rapid transit, or BRT — will be a disaster. The draft environmental impact statement, prepared by a high-priced consultant, says BRT would cause “significant and unavoidable impacts” on traffic by sending cars into adjacent neighborhoods and causing near gridlock on El Camino.
VTA’s goal is to force people out of their cars and onto buses. But VTA’s own independent third-party analysis by another consultant says, “Such high mode shifts are uncommon.”
Published: August 1, 2016
The bureaucrats at VTA tell us all the time that they’re trying to reduce traffic congestion, and all they need is more money from our wallets. In November, VTA wants to raise the sales tax in Santa Clara County from the current 8.75% to 9.25%. It will be the third sales tax increase for transportation in the county since 2000.
At the same time, VTA is refusing to back down from a plan that will cause traffic congestion and add delays to the lives of nearly everyone. VTA intends to spend close to a quarter of a billion dollars to eliminate a lane in each direction on El Camino from Mountain View to San Jose, and replace those lanes with bus-only lanes.
This project — called bus rapid transit, or BRT — will be a disaster. The draft environmental impact statement, prepared by a high-priced consultant, says BRT would cause “significant and unavoidable impacts” on traffic by sending cars into adjacent neighborhoods and causing near gridlock on El Camino.
VTA’s goal is to force people out of their cars and onto buses. But VTA’s own independent third-party analysis by another consultant says, “Such high mode shifts are uncommon.”
Public opposition
The public doesn’t need expensive consultant studies to know that eliminating a lane in each direction on El Camino is a dumb idea. Every time there’s a hearing on this, people voice strenuous objections. The few supporters who go to the microphone have, in some cases, been VTA employees who have tried to pass themselves off as ordinary members of the public.
Since VTA won’t back down on BRT, I see no alternative for voters except to vote “no” on the VTA sales tax this fall.
It’s the only way of stopping BRT.
Now I know what some of you are thinking. The measure on the ballot doesn’t contain any money for BRT, but the tax would go to things such as more bike and pedestrian trails, more frequent Caltrain service, improvements to highway interchanges and bringing BART to San Jose.
Since VTA won’t back down on BRT, I see no alternative for voters except to vote “no” on the VTA sales tax this fall.
It’s the only way of stopping BRT.
Now I know what some of you are thinking. The measure on the ballot doesn’t contain any money for BRT, but the tax would go to things such as more bike and pedestrian trails, more frequent Caltrain service, improvements to highway interchanges and bringing BART to San Jose.
Harm outweighs benefits
First, BRT will create more problems than any of these projects will solve. So we need to stop it. And the only way to get the attention of a powerful bureaucracy is to cut off its money. Nothing else wakes them up.
Second, why are we funding our transportation projects with a sales tax, which hurts low-and middle-income people much more than high earners? I thought our county’s leaders — all Democrats — were on the side of the downtrodden and disadvantaged?
The big advocate behind this sales tax and previous ones is Carl Guardino, head of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a chamber of commerce-like operation for big tech companies. Those companies ought to be paying for transportation projects that benefit their employees. Why are we passing the bill to the poor and middle-income residents?
(If I were an editorial cartoonist, I’d depict Guardino as a “Reverse Robin Hood,” who steals from the poor and gives to the rich.)
Third, how do we know this money will be wisely spent by VTA? Can you trust an agency like VTA that barrels ahead with BRT against common sense and strong public opposition? I don’t think an agency is being frugal when it plans to spend $233 million to repurpose two lanes of traffic for 13.9 miles. That’s $16.7 million a mile. Are they going to pave the bus lanes with gold?
Second, why are we funding our transportation projects with a sales tax, which hurts low-and middle-income people much more than high earners? I thought our county’s leaders — all Democrats — were on the side of the downtrodden and disadvantaged?
The big advocate behind this sales tax and previous ones is Carl Guardino, head of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a chamber of commerce-like operation for big tech companies. Those companies ought to be paying for transportation projects that benefit their employees. Why are we passing the bill to the poor and middle-income residents?
(If I were an editorial cartoonist, I’d depict Guardino as a “Reverse Robin Hood,” who steals from the poor and gives to the rich.)
Third, how do we know this money will be wisely spent by VTA? Can you trust an agency like VTA that barrels ahead with BRT against common sense and strong public opposition? I don’t think an agency is being frugal when it plans to spend $233 million to repurpose two lanes of traffic for 13.9 miles. That’s $16.7 million a mile. Are they going to pave the bus lanes with gold?
San Jose rips off North County
It’s also worth pointing out that VTA is very focused on San Jose and devotes little attention to Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos. Last year, County Supervisor Joe Simitian put out a report showing that 80% of the funds from the 2000 and 2008 sales tax increases were siphoned off to the BART-to-San Jose project, leaving the North County with precious little money for improving roads, bike paths and Caltrain.
And this time, the largest recipient of funds from the proposed half-cent increase in November would be — you guessed it — BART to San Jose.
Yes, BART will get $1.5 billion of the $6 billion this tax will pull out of our wallets.
BART-to-San Jose has become a sinkhole for our county taxes, sucking up every available transportation dollar. One reason that it’s so outrageously expensive is that San Jose leaders insisted in having BART enter their town through a $4.7 billion tunnel, that will extend BART from the Berryessa Flea Market to downtown San Jose. They wanted to protect the real estate along Santa Clara Street from a rail line. That’s a head-scratcher for me, because the real estate they’re trying to protect includes abandoned buildings, used car lots, tattoo parlors and the like.
(It’s interesting how San Jose gets a tunnel for a train, San Francisco is getting multiple tunnels and the mid-Peninsula is stuck with above ground tracks. And, you get to pay for San Jose’s tunnel every time you go to the store.)
To get Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos officials to endorse the measure, VTA has thrown in $314 million for Caltrain “capacity improvements” and $700 million for bridges to separate the tracks from streets, known as “grade separations” in government lingo.
But that Caltrain money is earmarked for the railroad’s entire “corridor” in the county. Based on VTA’s past behavior, most of the money will go for grade separations in San Jose and Santa Clara, while Mountain View and Palo Alto get crumbs.
And this time, the largest recipient of funds from the proposed half-cent increase in November would be — you guessed it — BART to San Jose.
Yes, BART will get $1.5 billion of the $6 billion this tax will pull out of our wallets.
BART-to-San Jose has become a sinkhole for our county taxes, sucking up every available transportation dollar. One reason that it’s so outrageously expensive is that San Jose leaders insisted in having BART enter their town through a $4.7 billion tunnel, that will extend BART from the Berryessa Flea Market to downtown San Jose. They wanted to protect the real estate along Santa Clara Street from a rail line. That’s a head-scratcher for me, because the real estate they’re trying to protect includes abandoned buildings, used car lots, tattoo parlors and the like.
(It’s interesting how San Jose gets a tunnel for a train, San Francisco is getting multiple tunnels and the mid-Peninsula is stuck with above ground tracks. And, you get to pay for San Jose’s tunnel every time you go to the store.)
To get Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos officials to endorse the measure, VTA has thrown in $314 million for Caltrain “capacity improvements” and $700 million for bridges to separate the tracks from streets, known as “grade separations” in government lingo.
But that Caltrain money is earmarked for the railroad’s entire “corridor” in the county. Based on VTA’s past behavior, most of the money will go for grade separations in San Jose and Santa Clara, while Mountain View and Palo Alto get crumbs.
Don’t be a fool
Frankly, we’re fools to give any more money to VTA. I’m not saying there aren’t transportation projects that need funding in Santa Clara County. But I don’t trust VTA to spend the money wisely, and the best evidence of that is BRT.
Voters should reject the sales tax increase in November and send VTA a message. No bus-only lanes on El Camino. Once VTA drops that project, we can consider another tax measure.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays
Voters should reject the sales tax increase in November and send VTA a message. No bus-only lanes on El Camino. Once VTA drops that project, we can consider another tax measure.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays