Just wondering….

Quite simply BART-to-SFO has major fatal, permanent flaws:

1. route time is not competitive. During the early morning rush taking a Baby Bullet train from points south of Millbrae to 4th and King with a transfer to Muni is faster. I did this for a year before Baby Bullet service started. Also there are express buses that take Caltrain riders to places like Fort Mason. Caltrain-to-Muni is more of a timed transfer. Caltrain-to-BART does not offer a timed connection and there is a lot of sitting around waiting.
2. Transferring to BART is more expensive. Caltrain-Muni combination offers monthly pass discount. BART has no monthly pass.
3. Getting to the airport is now much harder than before BART.

To expand on the last point on the difficulty of getting to SFO now. Lets compare the before and after picture:

Before BART:

1. Get off Caltrain at Millbrae
2. Get on (free) bus waiting for each Caltrain. The bus waited for you to shlep your luggage into the bus.
3. Passengers were dropped directly off at their airline terminal.
4. Unload bus.

Passengers did not have to go up and down at all with luggage and screaming kids.

Compare that to now:

1. Get off Caltrain at Millbrae.
2. Drag luggage (and kids!) to elevator #1.
3. Wait for elevator #1.
4. Load luggage into the elevator #1. (”Stop pushing the buttons!”)
5. Unload elevator #1
6. Buy BART ticket. (Hassle with change and bills)
7. Drag luggage through BART gate #1.
8. Drag luggage to elevator #2.
9. Wait for elevator #2.
10. Load luggage into the elevator #2. (”I said, ‘Stop pushing the buttons’, Rose!”)
11. Unload elevator #2
12. Drag luggage to BART train #1.
13. Wait for doors.
14. Drag luggage into BART train #1.
15. Unload luggage from BART train #1 at San Bruno.
16. Drag luggage to BART train #2. (less than a minute to do this with kids..go,go,go!) (damn missed it!)
17. (wait 15 min for next train)
18. Wait for doors.
19. Drag luggage into BART train #2.
20. Unload luggage from BART train #2 (at SFO) ( “Are we there yet!”)
21. Drag luggage through BART gate #2.
22. Drag luggage to elevator #3.
23. Wait for elevator #3.
24. Load luggage into the elevator #3. (”I said, ‘Stop pushing the buttons’!”)
25. Unload elevator #3 (”Honey, are you wearing deodorant?”)
26. Drag luggage to SFO people mover (Do we have the Xmas spirit yet?)
27. Wait for doors.
28. Drag luggage into SFO people mover.
29. Unload luggage from SFO people mover.
30. Drag luggage to elevator #4.
31. Wait for elevator #4.
32. Load luggage into the elevator #4. (”I said, ‘Stop pushing the buttons’!”)
33. Unload elevator #4

Update: This is what “stupid” looks like on a map:

View Larger Map

Be sure to thank Quentin Kopp and Mike Nevin the people responsible for the mess.

Any questions?

My letter to the Merc -

Dear Editor –

In 2000, Santa Clara voters were promised BART-to-San-Jose, Caltrain electrification, and increased bus service with no new taxes. Santa Claus was going to pay for any funding shortfalls.

Since then over $100 million in borrowed money has been spent planning the BART-to-San-Jose project. Yet for all that credit card spending, the BART-to-San-Jose project hasn’t even been able to complete the federal
documents needed to get federal funding. The proponents say that they plan on getting money from all these other agencies. Yet at $4.7 billion dollars and rising, BART is a project that no other agency believes should be
built and they certainly are not eager to fund it.

On June 6, the Santa Clara County voters realized that Santa Claus wasn’t coming to town and said “no more”.

It is time now to look at real solutions that don’t require Santa Clara to mortgage its future to build a single 21-mile rail line that will barely serve any county residents.

And my letter to the Mountain View Voice:

Dear Editor –

On June 6, the Santa Clara County voters spoke loud and clear. They want VTA to stop planning to build a project that no one will ride and no one else will help pay for. It is time to close up shop on the BART-to-San-Jose project and look to other solutions to our transportation problems.

Will the politicians and political establishment listen? The backers of BART-to-San-Jose seemed to consist mostly of companies that stood to make billions off the construction and the politicians who wanted to be there for the ribboncutting ceremonies and photo-ops.

Maybe it is time to elect new leaders who will spend money on practical transportation projects that actually help people get to their jobs and their doctor; leaders who don’t have a bust-the-bank-attitude and a BART-and-only-BART myopic vision.

It is time now to look at real solutions that don’t require Santa Clara to mortgage its future to build a single 21-mile rail line that will barely serve any county residents.

Victory … the night started of well for the pro-good transportation people and stayed excellent.

In spite of being outspent 100-1, the No On Measure A folks had a HUGE 30,000-vote margin of victory. The pro-measure A folks got spanked.

The Mercury News had this to say about the one and only one mailer we had the money to send:

This is the time to be especially wary of political mailers or telephone calls. Campaigns prone to misleading innuendo or outright lies often wait until the last minute.

Notice the implication, that our mailer is spreading an outright lie, when in fact it was 100% accurate.

Anti-BART activists have mailed a last-minute hit on Measure A, the half-cent sales tax for transportation and health care. It implies the measure would make the tax higher than anywhere else in the state, when Alameda County and other locations are already at that level.

Actually, what the flyer said was this “would make our taxes the highest in the state”, which is 100% true ( or rather would have been).

And it implies businesses supporting Measure A are trying to get out of paying sales tax, based on a proposal now stalled in the Legislature that would exempt only the purchase of manufacturing equipment — a break most of California’s economic competitors offer. It’s usually negative pieces that mislead.

Whether or not other states, offer or don’t offer the same tax break has no bearing on whether or not the Measure A proponents (Silicon Valley Leadership Group) are trying to cut themselves a sales tax break at the same time they were trying to raise everyone elses’ sales tax.

Today the Mercury said this:

Santa Clara County voters soundly rejecting a proposed half-cent increase designed to rescue the financially imperiled BART extension to Silicon Valley and restore health services for the poor.

It was a stunning result for much of the county’s political, business and labor establishment, which joined forces to promote a tax increase to address a variety of transportation and social service needs.

The $4.7 billion BART extension, the centerpiece of county transportation planning, is now in serious jeopardy, as politicians from Gilroy to Palo Alto will have to confront how to pay for a list of scheduled transportation projects far larger than they can afford. VTA lacks the money to operate the 16.1-mile extension, and federal officials won’t approve a $750 million contribution to the project unless VTA comes up with a stable financial plan.

Tax opponents said VTA now has to consider scrapping BART, which would serve Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, in order to spread existing funds more equitably around the county.

“We have to rethink BART, which is good because there are other things we can do which are great transit projects,” said Mountain View Councilman Greg Perry, a VTA board member and leading BART critic.

Like improving ACE and Capitol Corridors service incrementally.

Supervisor Don Gage said, “We’re going to have to layoff a significant number of people and cut a lot of services. We may have to close the county airports, cut off alcohol and drug services.”

Well maybe if the county hadn’t so foolish tied their sales tax request to that of the golden BART rescue plan, they wouldn’t be facing this problem.

And the Mercury finally admits to the pro-Measure A’s self-dealing:

The forces supporting Measure A outspent opponents by more than 100-to-1 after raising more than $1.7 million. Labor unions and members of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the county’s major business lobby, each contributed about $650,000 to the campaign.

An additional $160,000 came from development interests, many of whom have property in San Jose’s Coyote Valley and want it opened for development. An additional $130,000 came from contractors who work on Valley Transportation Authority projects, including companies working on the design of the planned BART extension.

Leadership group members have made BART their leading political cause since 2000, while most of the labor money came from the unions representing county employees.

(An article I wrote for the Loma Prietan):

One of the key public transportation issues in Santa Clara County is whether to extend BART to San Jose. Not only is it a huge project, but it may do more harm than good.

San Mateo County’s experience with the SFO extension is illustrative. Original projections were pretty good. For $1.2 billion, 62,000 riders per day would get out of their cars. The line would have so many people it would turn a profit, and that money could be used to help fund other public transportation.

It hasn’t turned out that way. The project was two years late and $300 million over budget, and the 12,000 to 13,000 net new riders is a fraction of the predicted 62,000. Few riders means less fares, so the extension has run large deficits, forcing huge cuts to bus service in San Mateo County. Those bus service cuts have resulted in a loss of 22,000 riders per day. That loss is almost twice the anticipated gain from building the BART extension in the first place.

Low ridership, service cuts, and loss of existing systems are the reasons the Sierra Club and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition opposed the first tax to fund the proposed BART-SJ extension. Santa Clara County could suffer the same damage as San Mateo.

Just as the SFO extension has had very low ridership, the San Jose extension does not look promising. Public transit advocates at the Transportation and Land Use Coalition have raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the VTA’s projections. For example, the number of riders per station is predicted to rival that of San Francisco. With no Bay Bridge or parking shortages to limit driving, and far less office space, this seems unlikely.

Even the Federal Transportation Authority has raised doubts, openly questioning the methodology used in preparing the VTA estimates. Those doubts are the primary reason the project was withdrawn from consideration for federal funding.

The BART financing plans also threaten to damage VTA bus operations. (Buses may not be flashy, but our bus systems carry far more riders than do our rail systems.)

The contract between the VTA and the BART system grants BART $48 million per year and the right to take away VTA bus funds to get it. So far, funding has not been identified to make these payments to build the extension. The potential loss of $48 million per year is about a quarter of the VTA’s bus budget.

The other risk to VTA bus operations comes from the financing to build BART. The current plan to finance BART is to borrow against our bus operating funds. That gives New York banks the right to take our bus funds if the financing plan goes awry.

The final question about BART to San Jose is whether it would be better than the systems it would replace. There are two trains that run from Fremont to San Jose, the Altamont Commuter Express and the Capital Corridor. Both are popular and have strong ridership: actual riders, not just projections.

The sidebar highlights the top 10 commutes into Santa Clara County. Eight of these commutes represent 85 percent of the total number of commuters and have nothing to do with linking Fremont to San Jose. Interestingly, all but one of the top 10 commutes would be well served by improving Caltrain, ACE, or Dumbarton Rail.

For riders who just want to get to work, this means BART-SJ doesn’t add much. We would do better just to expand service on the systems we already have.

When you add it all up, the current plan for extending BART to San Jose just doesn’t make sense. For the sake of projected riders who may never appear, it risks tens of thousands of existing riders. All to build a train that isn’t any faster or more direct than the ones we have today.

Here is the latest on SB1291 (Alquist):

First of all notice that:

EXISTING LAW requires entities engaged in manufacturing, research & development, telecommunications, software production, printing, biotechnology or pharmaceuticals that purchase, lease or rent equipment and other supplies to pay sales or use tax on their purchases of tangible personal property. But purchases of tangible personal property that become ingredients of an item to be resold are exempt from tax.

So much for Elaine Alquist’s claim that her bill is to reduce “double-taxation” to the poverty-striken manufacturers.

But what about the jobs?

It is unclear whether any incentive could make a difference in job growth in the manufacturing sectors of the economy due to the macroeconomic trend of outsourcing. This bill’s predecessor, the Manufacturers Investment Credit, offered a 6% income tax credit for purchases of manufacturing equipment for use in California. There is little evidence that this credit actually created many new jobs. The MIC’s sunset provision, based on growth in jobs, eventually allowed the MIC to sunset due to too few new jobs.

So the jobs are imaginary but the cost is not:

Based on Board of Equalization data, estimated state revenue loss from the bill would be about $1.75billion annually starting in 2006.

You just got to love the Mercury News editorial. They continue to push the June 6 Measure A, but the reasons they offer become more and more strained as they dance closer to the truth. VTAWatch helps them out a little here.

So it is time to help them out a little.

Nobody likes paying taxes.

Hmmm.. actually no. For the record, I personally don’t mind paying taxes when the common wealth of those taxes are used for the common good.

I do mind paying taxes that used on overpriced, goldplated projects whose only purpose is to provide a ribboncutting ceremony for one of the five most powerful in Santa Clara to attend. In a word, I am frugal and I expect my government to be the same.

And when it comes to our quality of life — our health, our safety, our ability to travel where we need to go — we get what we pay for.

I love this tired phrase, “you get what you pay for”. Yes and sometimes you get less than what you paid for, which is unfortunately the case here. Remember the county only needs a 1/4 cent sales tax to cover all of their social services needs for as long as the county projected. It is for this reason that Sup. Blanca Alvarado called this a “wink-and-nod” tax:

Alvarado said that although she would support a quarter-cent tax increase to fund regular county programs such as health care, she said she would not back a half-cent increase that with a “wink-and-a-nod” would also be used to pay for BART and VTA’s other projects.

(One minor correction here: It would just be BART there would be no other projects, road or otherwise)

So that means that if voters approve this “wink-and-nod” tax, then everybody from undocumented worker to software geek will be paying double what they really needed to pay. (But come on tell me, you don’t really mind paying twice as much as you had to do you?) But don’t worry, SVLG’s got the manufacturers’ back. Thanks to SB1291 (analysis here).

The Mercury continues:

There is a back-room deal, [opponents] say, to divide the money between transportation projects and the county’s health and welfare services.

Excuse me, Blanca also called it a backroom deal. O.k. well she didn’t use those exact words, but “wink-and-nod” tax doesn’t sound like everything is out in the sunshine either does it?

A little later the Mercury almost approaches the truth:

There is no legally binding requirement for current or future supervisors to spend a penny on Valley Medical Center or … [insert your favorite social services here]

Here is a pop quiz “What happens if San Jose has the downtown streets torn up trying to build BART, and is goes overbudget by 1% ($40-70million)?” What is the likelihood that there will be a lot of sad talk as social services get the ax to fill the hole through downtown?

In the biggest bit of misinformation:

Opponents of Measure A dismiss all that, using copious figures to claim the Valley Transportation Authority is a disaster and the county is exaggerating its challenges. But they sometimes misinterpret, or misrepresent, their statistics. A judge forced them to rewrite their inaccurate No-on-A ballot argument.

Of course what this means is that everything on the ballot “No on measure A” has been vetted and agreed as 100% accurate by the proponents of this tax. (we don’t even have to get into the minor issue of there not being significant changes or the fact that VTA is ranked near the bottom nation-wide of all transit agencies)

About a year ago, Timothy Roberts quoted Kirk Everett from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, arguing in favor of SB552:

“We can’t afford not to have this right now,” says Kirk Everett, director of governmental relations and tax policy for the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. “Investing in our competitiveness and creating jobs is where we are going with this.”

This bill would completely exempt manufacturers and software companies from sales tax.

Now here we are in 2006, once again the SVLG is pleading poverty and going to Sacramento asking for welfare from the state. They are pushing SB1291-Alquist, which would merely exempt themselves from most sales tax. The manufacturers would only have to pay 2.75% sales tax. You can read my analysis here.
But what else is the SVLG doing? They are pushing a sales tax measure here in Santa Clara County that is double what is needed.

The county needs only a quarter-cent sales tax to cover all their needs. This is according to the county staff at the February 28, 2006 meeting. The only reason the ballot is as high as it is because of the desire by the movers and shakers to build gold-plated projects that no other agency wants to fund or build (small point it’s because no one would use them). More about those projects can be read about here.

Lets look at SB1291, the Silicon Valley Leadership group claims that it is just to avoid a competitive disadvantage:

John Ambroseo, chief executive of Santa Clara-based Coherent, speaking on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, argues that the state tax exemption is needed to make California competitive with most other states that don’t tax manufacturing purchases on the theory that products are “double-taxed” when the businesses then sell the products they make.

But wait a minute, isn’t sales tax by definition “double-taxation”? When you go to work and get your paycheck, what is taken out? Taxes. So when you go to the store to buy what you need, aren’t you being “double-taxed” when the cashier charges the sales tax on those pair of shoes? Why isn’t Elaine Alquist asking that ordinary folk get their own sales tax exemption?

Now Elaine claims in her letter in the 4/21/2006 issue of the Mountain View Voice that SB1291 would

simply would ensure that California manufacturers would not be “double taxed” on both the “inputs” and the “outputs” of their equipment and products

it seemed worth a deeper look at the language of the bill.

Section I, reads in part:

6377. (a) … there are exempted from the taxes imposed by this part the gross receipts from the sale of, and the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of:

(1) Tangible personal property that will become … tangible personal property manufactured, processed, fabricated, or used in research and development activities.

(2) Tangible personal property directly used or consumed in … research and development of tangible personal property:

(A) The product being … or used in a research and development activity.

(B) Any intermediate or preliminary product that will [be] used in a research and development activity.

…

(9) …used in performing research and development activities.

Wow, reading the list, it is hard to imagine some activity that is not covered by this sales tax exception. “Research and development” covers practically any and all activities a company could engage in. But what does “research and development” cover in Elaine’s bill:

(6) “Research and development” means those described in Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code or in any regulations thereunder.
(c) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) The production of a publication for the dissemination of news of a general character and of a general interest that is printed on newsprint and distributed to the general public at a daily, weekly, or other short intervals is considered manufacturing.

So apparently printing the SJ Mercury and company newsletters is considered “research and development”.

(2) The manufacturing or research and development of computer software.

Anything related to writing a computer program. I sense lots of software engineers becoming “businesses” for this massive loophole.

(3) “Semiconductor, pharmaceutical or biotechnology fabrication clean rooms and equipment” means all tangible personal property, … used in connection with the manufacturing, processing,
fabrication, or research and development … of a semiconductor, pharmaceutical, or biotechnology product, without regard to whether the property is actually contained in the clean room environment.

So all Intel has to do is claim that the purchase has something to do with a clean room and they get a tax break. And a side note here: you really have to admire the balliesness to claim a tax deduction for “clean room” equipment that isn’t in the clean room. This sounds like something a creative tax accountant could really have fun with.

It gets even better, lets look at the some of the other sections:

“Research and development” includes integrated systems, fixtures, and piping, all property necessary or adapted to reduce contamination or to control airflow, temperature, humidity, chemical purity, or other environmental conditions or manufacturing or research and development tolerances, and production equipment and machinery.

So software, biotech, semiconductor companies all get a major sales tax. Reading deeper, the is hard to imagine any industry that wouldn’t be exempt.

So what would this cost? Well the earlier version, SB552, which in many cases is word for word identical, the Legislative Analyst issued this report:

immediately putting the state back into a deficit position to the extent of some $10 billion (three times $3.2 billion plus interest). In other words, this bill might put the state into a permanent deficit position

Sounds to me like a lot of social programs would be cut.

Lets look at some of the other tasties:

(10) Tangible personal property used … if the use or consumption of the property is necessary and essential to comply with federal, state, or local laws, or rules and regulations that establish requirements related to public health.

(11) Tangible personal property specifically installed to do any of the following:
(A) Reduce water use and wastewater flow volumes from the manufacturing, processing, fabrication, research and development or repair operation.

(B) Reuse and recycle wastewater streams generated within the manufacturing, processing, fabrication, research and development or repair operation.

So basically, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is asking that their members get a tax exemption for equipment that is required to obey the law.

When was the last time that you were paid to obey the law? Do you tell the police officer that you didn’t stop for the stop sign because you were not paid to stop for it? I thought that obeying the law was required because it … ummm .. is the law?

I sense a Leona Helmsley moment:

“Only little people pay taxes.”

The Murky reports that:

Mayor Ron Gonzales “volunteered” Wednesday to be replaced on a transportation advisory board he has chaired since 2002.

Gonzales’ latest move comes after he stunned many last week by showing up to chair [the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board] Valley Transportation Authority advisory board. Until then, many of his colleagues believed he had been forced to resign from all such posts as punishment for his role in procuring a controversial contract amendment for Norcal Waste Systems.

This is the board that is guiding Mr. Ron Gonzalas pet BART-to-San-Jose project into multi-billion dollar cost overruns before construction even starts. I guess he just couldn’t bear the possibility of not being there to stroke his pet before he left office.

Apparently this board members realize what a mess the BART project is:

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who sits on the VTA’s 10-member Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Advisory Board, said that while he was surprised Gonzales showed up at last week’s meeting, he was not disappointed. Haggerty, who like Gonzales is a BART-to-San Jose backer, said that without the San Jose mayor, work at the advisory board had ground to a halt. It couldn’t even muster a quorum for the previous two meetings

(This post will be an active post as I learn more over the next few months)

Anyone is allowed to submit an argument in favor or against a ballot proposal. The more elected officials and bona fide organizations that signoff the more likely it is to be chosen by the registrar of voters. They have a set of criteria that they need to follow. But it basically boils down to the argument that has signers that represent the most people. So government and bona fide organization having their officers sign is important.

In our case we had:

• David Casas Council Member City of Los Altos and former VTA Boardmember
• Patrick Moore Member, 1996 Measure B Citizens’ Watchdog Committee
• Greg Perry Member, VTA Board of Directors (and Mountain View Vice Mayor)
• Douglas McNea President, Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association
• Kevin Takenaga Chair, Libertarian Party

A nice goodly number of titled people. A goodly chance to get our voice heard.

Before measure is on ballot:

1. Line up ballot argument signers. Trying to do this on a compressed schedule is difficult. And a compressed schedule is what you may have if the ballot argument is put on by a government body. In many cases, a government body can put a measure on the ballot only 63 days before the election.
2. Get the signature forms and get them signed by the people you want to appear on the ballot statement. Get multiple forms and get the possible signers to sign multiple copies. This will allow for choosing exactly who will appear on the ballot very late in the game without having to run around collecting signatures again. You do not want to be scrambling around the day arguments are due trying to collect signatures. You may discover that a key person is out of town.
3. Find out when the ballot argument due. Keep in mind that the Registrar has to translate the ballot into a zillion different languages. So this deadline will come faster than you think. For the June 6, 2006 ballot, main arguments were due March 15, 2006
4. Know the word count limit and how the words are counted. For example, URLs may be counted differently.

Remember these are strict rules and this is a legal process. In legal processes, form counts for a lot. If you don’t follow the rules to the letter, that could be grounds for your argument to be discarded or challenged in court.