Enough new high density construction. There is not enough water to sustain our quality of life. Congestion, noise, limited parking, and lack of resources have made us look like a third world country notwithstanding ever-increasing fees and taxes.
Plastic grass lawns is not an answer. Neither is continually raising taxes.

High density housing uses less water per person than any other form of housing.

If you stop dense housing here, you just get more grass lawns in Stockton. How does that help?

Either BART comes from Millbrae or from Santa Clara, or you can say No.

Santa Clara County has gotten far too big and San Jose far too powerful to benefit all of its residents. We relatively wealthy cities in Northern and Western SC County are being financially and politically exploited by San Jose and other poorer Southern cities. We should consider voting to leave Santa Clara County and to form our own county. I would (most humbly, Ha!) suggest that the new county consist of Palo Alto, Los Altos & Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Gatos --- the cream of Santa Clara County. San Jose can be stuck with the rest.

BART, stay away. BART serves its original purpose very well, bringing commuters to the high-rise office buildings of downtown SF. And taking them away. Each day. Down here, we don't have a dense cluster of offices to justify heavy rail. And hopefully never will.

In related news

Press Release by City of Mountain View:

Web Link

I am curious...
What are the ramifications off the request for a Federal Environmental Review, and who determines if one is granted

How about taking from BART the money from the existing Measure A and Measure B which is still flowing in? That's $2.5 Billion which is as yet unallocated.

The voters were sold a plan for Measure B which ended Bart at Berryessa. There were numerous other projects in Measure B which were scuttled. The money is still coming. So now's the time to work on the other plans.

Honestly, BART as a subway is such a waste of money. The elected officials should be held accountable for not following the will of the voters.

NO MORE MONEY! Not even if BART is capped at 5% of the new measure!

So nice that Simitian is using his first amendment right of public comment, and his bully pulpit as an elected local government official, to advance the case of his constituents. Maybe he can sway the debate (and vote) on an important taxing issues (and spending issue) with the Board of Supervisors! It is nice to see our locally elected city mayors also jumping into the public discussion. (thanks for the press release link)!

I'd also hope the housing/transit topics don't get mired together in this tax/spend discussion.

If they cap BART funding, my vote will be yes. Otherwise the money will just be thrown down a well. To be honest, the money also needs to exclude BRT and other such turds. Some beaurocratic "visionary" may deem that to be the only acceptable form of congestion relief.

Hell, fix Rengstorff and I don't care which crony they give the rest to. I'm so exhausted by that damn intersection.

Getting funds for BART to build extension to Santa Clara, while it is being built make plans for MV or PA extension. Getting BART Sunnyvale would be good also.

The reason why it takes so long is NIMBY, naysayers and special interest groups. In the meantime traffic gets worse, construction costs will increase and land prices will continue to raise.

So rebuilding the Rengstroff-Central Expressway will be good but keep in mind future needs.

I strongly oppose another sales tax increase. The proponents are hoping to sucker those of modest means into raising their taxes once again, despite the fact that voters have already done so multiple times. Over the last several elections, voters in Santa Clara County have passed multiple tax and fee increases and we’re on the hook to pay back numerous state bond issues.

All of this nickel and diming has contributed into making the Bay Area a horribly expensive place to live; especially for people of modest means, who must pay the greatest percentage of their income in these regressive taxes and fees. Each increase by itself does not amount to much, say a half-cent, but the cumulative effect is to add to the unaffordability of the region.

Before increasing taxes YET AGAIN, waste needs to be removed from transportation projects. For example, VTA needs to eliminate waste and “gold plating” of the BART extension’s cost by reducing the scope to eliminate duplicate facilities. Specifically, a revised “build alternative” needs to be added to the study that eliminates the duplicative and wasteful section between the San Jose and Santa Clara Caltrain stations. The BART segment from the San Jose to Santa Clara Caltrain stations would duplicate both the existing Caltrain line and VTA’s 22 and 522 buses to a station that has only 900 riders. This is extremely wasteful and insulting considering recent voter approval of all the taxes/fees listed above.

Why don’t the wealthy high-rollers in Carl Guardino's poorly named “Silicon Valley ‘Leadership’ Group” suggest taxing their rich companies that create the congestion, and leave the little guy alone for a change?

A cap is a bad idea. The proposed cap would hold the expensive extension via subway to downtown San Jose to $4 Billion. So what happens when the project over runs the cost? A better plan would be to require none of the remaining fund from Measure A or Measure B to go to that Bart extension. When Measure B was passed that was the plan. Instead Measure B covered many other projects throughout the county.

Then for this new measure, a vote should be required to authorize any spending on extending Bart from Berryessa. Not just a cap, not allocating $4 Billion to that extension, but a vote before any more wasteful spending on Bart.

The article is not just about BART or the VTA. It is mostly about the County Board of Supervisors getting billions more for whatever transportation or other projects they favor. Most of the Supervisors live in South County. Any measure must limit how money can be spent or you we will soon MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS. Of course, a sales tax increase would be regressive. Silicon Valley corpirations will pay little. But the politicians will not talk about any of that.

Yes, just can this stupid BART extension project. What a waste of money. BART is the group that wastes the most money and should just be dismantled.

The council voted to support the dedicated lane option of BRT, which reflects the prevailing opinion of it's residents.
The BART extension will be funded and completed. Ideally, the money would come from a special tax against the companies that are causing the congestion, but if that is unworkable, then a modest sales tax increase is fine.

It's funny to hear a few cranks on this site that claim the city is against VTA. All the railing about a recall petition which received few signatures or any word from the so-called recall committee is laughable. Transparent.

Look what the VTA has announced:

Web Link

Independent Third Party Review

​"VTA has initiated an independent third party review to evaluate VTA’s and its contractors’ environmental analysis of ridership forecasting and traffic impact for the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project. This independent third party review will focus specifically on the traffic operations analysis, including the scope, methodology, data quality, and recommendations. The review will document how the analysis applied compares to industry practice, established standards and guidelines in the above categories. VTA initiated the independent review which culminates in a formal technical report of findings and recommendations, to provide confidence that established practices were followed in the environmental analysis and therefore increase the probability of stakeholder acceptance of results."


Was this independent third party review initiated in response to this request Web Link
made by the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga.
...

"Specifically, the cities signing this letter respectfully request that the VTA initiate a comprehensive study, leading to an alternatives analysis and formal Federal environmental review process and clearance, to develop a system-wide plan that integrates future mass transit investments in Santa Clara County with connections to other counties, via such systems as Caltrain, as well as community-level systems and “first/last mile” strategies. The study’s initial focus should be on the Highway 85/U.S. Route 101/State Route 237/Interstate 280 corridors, recognizing the changing dynamics of commute patterns within the Peninsula, East Bay and southern Santa Clara County that affect West Valley and North County cities."

The third party review is not "independent." it is just a consultant paid by VTA to back VTA's absurd no impact projections. The VTA employs clowns to post on news articles. You see some of their postings above.

It doesn't take much thought to see serious problems with the assumptions in VTA's analysis to date. The biggest flaw is the failure to make simple changes to the way the 522 route works now. With these changes, a non-dedicated lane implementation of BRT could be both better and cheaper. It's not just about losing a traffic lane!

Please consider:

Besides taking away a traffic lane, the use of a dedicated lane and fancy stations on the median have serious drawbacks for 22/522 riders in Palo Alto and Mountain View. For speed of transit, most stops of 22 are skipped (no 522 boarding) for the rapid route. Conversion to dedicated lanes will cast that in stone. Because the stops are 2 miles apart, this poses a serious barrier to access for many potential riders. The current boarding is slower than needed because cash fares are accepted and the bus only permits boarding through a single door. SF Muni and other transit agencies have found that simply using all-door boarding and clipper cards vastly speeds up stops. 522 could stop at several more places in Mountain View while not sacrificing in speed of travel for the average rider. Many fewer people would need to first ride 22 before waiting for the 522 at rare permitted pick up point. This could all be done without expensive new median stations and ticketing machines, just using Clipper Card. Ridership should increase and the service would be better for many riders boarding at the now-skipped stops. Yet total travel time would not run up because stops can be faster for boarding. Additionally, boarding at the curb is more convenient for ALL riders, especially wheel chairs and other disabled. If you get off a 22 bus, you are right by the 522 pick up point, not needing to wait for a traffic signal to change, etc.

So, we need to ask ourselves, how much of the "speed up" and "passenger increase" of BRT is achievable simply with a more logical design of the EXISTING system, new BRT vehicles, no-cash all-door boarding, and yet still permit additional stops, at least for the first 6 miles of the route, where a stop would get added riders? A lot of things are better for bus riders without the dedicated lanes.

And all this from a MONEY HUNGRY GROUP who keep proposing that they need MORE TAXES. I'd like to see common sense changes to make the most of the existing funding before crying for more money!

SF Muni == high fare box recovery and broad base of ridership

VTA -- 11% farebox recovery and trouble attracting riders

SF Muni -- all door boarding and high usage of Clipper Cards to speed stopping times

VTA -- stuck in the mud with cash fares and clueless riders. Resorts to skipping many many stops on 522 service just to deal with the fumbling way they encourage riders to behave. Propose buying $100,000 ticket machines as the only way they feel thay can disallow cash fares to speed boarding. Ugh.

Real Transit systems do so much better than VTA. VTA should not be rewarded for its own stupidity.

All the complaints against a bus service that YOU don't use. I bet you just LOVE your CAR though, right?

VTA wants to dramatically improve service to make it more effective and popular. The whole "farebox" argument doesn't hold water. Roadways have a ZERO percent "farebox recovery", yet are given the ability to completely congest movement of shared transit options. So, if you want to defund a transportation mode by its "farebox recovery" amount, then close the roads to private automobiles!

Fortunately, this is a whole lot of HOOPLA for nothing. The only rational argument against the project is that the projected automobile-traffic impact will be high. VTA has shown that this fear is incorrect by using a traffic forecasting system. Then, the argument is that the modeling system is flawed. So, now there is a 3rd party review of the system to validate the BRT forecast. If the 3rd party comes back stating that the forecast is wrong, then it's back to the drawing board for VTA. However, if the 3rd party review validates the methodology, then there should be no objection by rational and ethical people.

All these comments like the one previous show a biased view of someone from outside the area. Assumptions that other people posting do not use VTA services are incorrect. That does not mean that there aren't terrible drawbacks to the VTA approach to service. Low farebox recovery means precisely that ridership is very low. Buses are only filled more than half way at the very busiest times of day, and the rest of the day they run much less than half full. This is what causes the low farebox recovery, and it means a lot.

Obviously this last post comes from someone who has not gotten around, and has not viewed the public transit service as a rider in San Francisco. Things are night and day with regard to the efficiency of the operation.

Then this argument that roadways have zero farebox recovery. Well, the sky and the ocean and the air have zero farebox recovery too. A roadway is a PASSIVE resource, not a service. The bikes and pedestrians use the roadway too, as well as buses.

This kind of specious argument is what VTA has relied on. Support for no reason and without regard to GOOD service, let alone efficient service.

No one is saying that VTA should discontinue operations. However, when they propose to focus on people traveling long distances to the detriment of those trying to use VTA service on ECR just to get around locally, they are showing they have GIVEN UP on the vast majority of customers, both REAL EXISTING RIDER and POTENTIAL RIDERS.

The VTA operations plan for the 22 route after creating a dedicated lane calls for reducing service, and then increasing the frequency on 522. In fact, what is supported by the evidence is the opposite. More frequent local service is what is needed to increase ridership. One way to do this is to simply add more stops on the proposed 522 routes, eliminate the median boarding and dedicated lane, and save all the wasted money ($1 Million each) they want to use to create these few places where 522 will continue to stop.

Using the low slung BRT vehicles along the curb will produce great benefits, as well as no-cash fare policy relying on Clipper Cards. With so many doors, and all-door boarding, stops will be fast. It will be easier for people to bring bikes on board. And VTA was supposed to start this mode of operation earlier this year. Now it's delayed for 2 more years.

We have the right to simply see what happens with the promised services along the curb before even considering any plan to spend $1 Million each on stations to reduce accessibility of the 522 service!

The previous "Thunk" poster has demonstrated their lack of knowledge about a great many things beyond transit service by saying:

"Well, the sky and the ocean and the air have zero farebox recovery too. A roadway is a PASSIVE resource, not a service."

Wow. The level of ignorance in this statement is deeper than the Mariana Trench! Comparing roads to the sky? To the ocean? To our atmosphere? Really?

If this poster hasn't noticed, our roadways are not the "sky". The sky is not artificial. Roads are. He seems to believe that once roads are "built", that they are inanimate objects that can exist without any human care, maintenance--in other words SERVICE!

What service? In no particular order, road maintenance includes: repairing potholes, painting lines, cleaning dirt and debris, regular re-paving. The roadways include signs that direct people where to go. Those must be created, installed and maintained. Traffic signals: installation, repair, cleaning, new bulbs, traffic control logic, electrical connections. The roads must be patrolled, as not everyone obeys the traffic regulations. This list goes on and on.. Gasoline anyone? Lots of service there.

In other words, the roadways are NOT inanimate objects, but rather a complex collection of physical things AND a large array of essential services. They are hardly "passive resources"!!!

On the plus side, the previous poster has reminded us all that automobiles are not the only users of the roadways:

"The bikes and pedestrians use the roadway too, as well as buses."

That's a great point! The BRT project with dedicated lane will make it easier and safer for both bikers and pedestrians to navigate the area. Thanks for reminding us all.

Clearly the "Thunk" poster is out of area. They marked the posting as "member of another community", right? I am local.

BART and Caltrain need to close the loop with a South Bay connection, preferably at the San Jose Caltrain station. But then with the two systems connected at both ends of the peninsula, an already overburdened and under-functioning Caltrain will also need a fixed source of funding to handle the increased ridership as more East and South bay riders leave their cars and ride the two systems as one trip.
Maybe the cap is a good idea? Maybe for every dollar spent on the BART extension, a dedicated amount should go to the entire Caltrain system to provide the needed upgrades.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?