News

Scaled-back bus lanes plan gets lukewarm response

Council gives wary support to VTA's revised bus rapid transit project on El Camino Real

It could be a bumpy ride ahead for transit officials' goal to bring dedicated bus lanes to El Camino Real, based on the reaction from the Mountain View City Council. In a Tuesday review, some of the Mountain View council members who previously supported full implementation of the Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) plan became skeptics after considering a scaled-back pilot version of the original project.

The pilot project was recommended earlier this year by a Valley Transportation Authority policy-advisory committee as a way to appease the six South Bay cities along El Camino Real's corridor. At a cost of $223 million, the original version of the BRT project called for using two of El Camino's six lanes for bus-only traffic, as well as building a series of new bus stops and infrastructure. The scale of the project and concern over its traffic impacts spooked many nearby residents and businesses, leading VTA officials to return with a much milder proposal.

The VTA's latest pitch calls for a pilot project that would reserve the right lanes of El Camino for buses, shuttles and high-occupancy vehicles only during peak hours. Under the plan, the trial would be enforced for the full 17-mile stretch running from Palo Alto to San Jose during peak traffic hours: 7-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The pilot project would cost a fraction of the original BRT plan's price up to $9 million which would go toward repainting portions of the road and installing signs to alert drivers of the new rules. The pilot is expected to last around three years, but it would likely require the drafting of new environmental-impact studies, which could take up to two years to prepare.

The hope is that it would provide useful information showing how a permanent project would function, said Los Altos Mayor Jeannie Bruins, who chairs the VTA's policy advisory board for the project.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

"One of the things that became clear was that the (BRT) alternatives that were looked at were controversial," Bruins said. "The purpose of this (pilot) is to assess the situation; we'd do some before-and-after data collection."

Bruins presented a basic outline of the project at the Tuesday, April 5, study session of the Mountain View City Council, which she noted was the first city to review the new plans.

Approximately one year ago, a majority of Mountain View's council came out in support of the full bus-rapid transit proposal, prompting a fierce backlash among opponents and a threats to recall two council members. Some of the plan's former supporters gave a less-than-enthusiastic response on Tuesday.

Councilman Mike Kasperzak, previously in support of the BRT plan, said he didn't understand what the pilot was trying to accomplish. A temporary project wouldn't galvanize commuters to change their behavior, he said.

"I really don't favor this moving forward," Kasperzak said. "I want to realize the dream, but I don't know if the dream is realizable anymore."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Kasperzak took the opportunity to fire a broadside against VTA for "trying to shove a square peg in a round hole." VTA should have the traffic expertise, but its officials weren't providing enough information to cities to guide their decision-making, he said.

Rising to VTA's defense was Councilman Lenny Siegel -- who last year opposed the BRT project. Now a member of VTA's advisory board for the project, Siegel said transit officials were trying to find a project that cities would support, lest they be accused of ramrodding it forward.

"Obviously this is a divisive issue but we came to a pretty good agreement among all the cities along the corridor," he said. "There's obviously a lot of unknowns, but to me this is a good path forward."

The project received a lukewarm response from the rest of the council. Ken Rosenberg and Pat Showalter, both prior supporters, said they would back the new pilot project even though they had some concerns about the overall results. Councilman John Inks said he opposed the project until specifics on its impacts could be provided.

Like past Mountain View meetings on the BRT proposal, councilmen John McAlister and Chris Clark recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest due to owning property near El Camino Real.

At best, VTA officials say they would like the pilot project to be tested along the full 17-mile stretch running from Palo Alto to San Jose, but that depends on the willing participation of each city. At a minimum, the pilot could be tried along a 3-mile route, VTA officials reported.

Bruins said each participating city would have to decide on its own how to enforce the dedicated lanes as well as how they would affect bike lanes, street parking and vehicles making right turns. Mountain View was the first of six cities to review VTA's newest iteration of the bus-rapid transit plan, and Bruins said she would be presenting it to other cities in the coming weeks.

Email Mark Noack at [email protected]

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Scaled-back bus lanes plan gets lukewarm response

Council gives wary support to VTA's revised bus rapid transit project on El Camino Real

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, Apr 7, 2016, 11:56 am

It could be a bumpy ride ahead for transit officials' goal to bring dedicated bus lanes to El Camino Real, based on the reaction from the Mountain View City Council. In a Tuesday review, some of the Mountain View council members who previously supported full implementation of the Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) plan became skeptics after considering a scaled-back pilot version of the original project.

The pilot project was recommended earlier this year by a Valley Transportation Authority policy-advisory committee as a way to appease the six South Bay cities along El Camino Real's corridor. At a cost of $223 million, the original version of the BRT project called for using two of El Camino's six lanes for bus-only traffic, as well as building a series of new bus stops and infrastructure. The scale of the project and concern over its traffic impacts spooked many nearby residents and businesses, leading VTA officials to return with a much milder proposal.

The VTA's latest pitch calls for a pilot project that would reserve the right lanes of El Camino for buses, shuttles and high-occupancy vehicles only during peak hours. Under the plan, the trial would be enforced for the full 17-mile stretch running from Palo Alto to San Jose during peak traffic hours: 7-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The pilot project would cost a fraction of the original BRT plan's price up to $9 million which would go toward repainting portions of the road and installing signs to alert drivers of the new rules. The pilot is expected to last around three years, but it would likely require the drafting of new environmental-impact studies, which could take up to two years to prepare.

The hope is that it would provide useful information showing how a permanent project would function, said Los Altos Mayor Jeannie Bruins, who chairs the VTA's policy advisory board for the project.

"One of the things that became clear was that the (BRT) alternatives that were looked at were controversial," Bruins said. "The purpose of this (pilot) is to assess the situation; we'd do some before-and-after data collection."

Bruins presented a basic outline of the project at the Tuesday, April 5, study session of the Mountain View City Council, which she noted was the first city to review the new plans.

Approximately one year ago, a majority of Mountain View's council came out in support of the full bus-rapid transit proposal, prompting a fierce backlash among opponents and a threats to recall two council members. Some of the plan's former supporters gave a less-than-enthusiastic response on Tuesday.

Councilman Mike Kasperzak, previously in support of the BRT plan, said he didn't understand what the pilot was trying to accomplish. A temporary project wouldn't galvanize commuters to change their behavior, he said.

"I really don't favor this moving forward," Kasperzak said. "I want to realize the dream, but I don't know if the dream is realizable anymore."

Kasperzak took the opportunity to fire a broadside against VTA for "trying to shove a square peg in a round hole." VTA should have the traffic expertise, but its officials weren't providing enough information to cities to guide their decision-making, he said.

Rising to VTA's defense was Councilman Lenny Siegel -- who last year opposed the BRT project. Now a member of VTA's advisory board for the project, Siegel said transit officials were trying to find a project that cities would support, lest they be accused of ramrodding it forward.

"Obviously this is a divisive issue but we came to a pretty good agreement among all the cities along the corridor," he said. "There's obviously a lot of unknowns, but to me this is a good path forward."

The project received a lukewarm response from the rest of the council. Ken Rosenberg and Pat Showalter, both prior supporters, said they would back the new pilot project even though they had some concerns about the overall results. Councilman John Inks said he opposed the project until specifics on its impacts could be provided.

Like past Mountain View meetings on the BRT proposal, councilmen John McAlister and Chris Clark recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest due to owning property near El Camino Real.

At best, VTA officials say they would like the pilot project to be tested along the full 17-mile stretch running from Palo Alto to San Jose, but that depends on the willing participation of each city. At a minimum, the pilot could be tried along a 3-mile route, VTA officials reported.

Bruins said each participating city would have to decide on its own how to enforce the dedicated lanes as well as how they would affect bike lanes, street parking and vehicles making right turns. Mountain View was the first of six cities to review VTA's newest iteration of the bus-rapid transit plan, and Bruins said she would be presenting it to other cities in the coming weeks.

Email Mark Noack at [email protected]

Comments

VTA
Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm
VTA, Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Here's an idea - how about VTA stops proposing to waste taxpayer funds with misguided plans that only a small and vocal minority want, and instead focus on fixing signal timing and potholes? Maybe they can also teach their bus drivers how to drive properly, including not running red lights.


VTA
Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm
VTA, Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Here's an idea - how about VTA stops proposing to waste taxpayer funds with misguided plans that only a small and vocal minority want, and instead focus on fixing signal timing and potholes? Maybe they can also teach their bus drivers how to drive properly, including not running red lights.


Resident
Cuesta Park
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:23 pm
Resident, Cuesta Park
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:23 pm

No thanks; the buses are empty (even with the tinted windows on the new ones that make it tough to see).


Oxy Moron
Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Oxy Moron, Old Mountain View
on Apr 7, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Bus Rapid Transit and Valley Transportation Authority are both triple play Oxymorons.


EMPTY Buses, Say NO to VTA
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2016 at 3:14 pm
EMPTY Buses, Say NO to VTA, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Taking anything away from so very many users to benefit 2 or 3 people riding the bus is why the VTA is both laughable and dangerous.
Their new plan sounds exactly like BRT1, the failed mis-managed attempt to do just a SIMPLE BRT. It is crippling businesses and VTA has to use our tax money to pay them, in order to try and make up for the mess they created in the wake of their failure

VTA needs their funding cut so they can clean their bloated infrastructure and quit wasting tax payer's money year in and year out.

Big surprise the bought and paid for Showalter and Rosenberg will support it no matter what. They are on the VTA payroll and need that support to further their political aspirations. They were the ones who got the late "Questionable" funds from unknown origins. This charade on voters and tax payers needs to end.

VOTE: NO NEW TAXES from VTA!


Darin
Registered user
another community
on Apr 7, 2016 at 3:17 pm
Darin, another community
Registered user
on Apr 7, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Another "feature" of the El Camino BRT plan that needs to be scrapped is the use of curb bulbout stations that deliberately force buses to stop in the right traffic lane, rather than providing space for buses to pull over, out of the way of other traffic. Especially now that BRT is sharing the lane with local buses, shuttles, and HOV, it needs to "play nice" with other traffic.

But at least the pilot plan doesn't waste precious road space with a pseudo-lightrail design, or physically separate the 522/BRT stops from the 22/local stops (which would make transfers even more difficult).


Mark
Shoreline West
on Apr 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm
Mark, Shoreline West
on Apr 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

So the plan is to turn the El Camino into a SEVENTEEN MILE LONG PARKING LOT during the MORNING AND EVENING COMMUTE HOURS??? So the plan is to gob up the traffic on El Camino but "only during peak hours" which is EXACTLY when El Camino DOESN'T need more traffic jams which is EXACTLY what this joke of a "busy work" ( = job security for this horribly bloated VTA business) plan WILL CREATE = a SEVENTEEN MILE LONG DAILY TRAFFIC JAM that will occur ALL OF THE TIME and NOT "only during peak hours" ... NO MORE TAX $$$ FOR THE OVERFED, BLOATED AND ELITIST VTA! ALL of this to shove mass transit down our throats when THE BUSES ARE VIRTUALLY EMPTY??? You KNOW the VTA executives DON'T use mass transit but want to FORCE FEED the rest of us with it!!!


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 7, 2016 at 7:44 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 7, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Just remember to vote AGAINST the VTA's sales tax increase headed for the November ballot.


Shary
Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm
Shary, Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm

The VTA has the gall to run their needlessly expensive deluxe double busses down El Camino, carrying three to six passengers maximum, at an OUTRAGEOUS COST-PER-RIDER. That ridiculous waste of taxpayer money is all you need to know in order to gauge their abysmal financial intelligence. Now they want to try to sneak in the back door with an idiotic "experiment" that will bring El Camino to a STANDSTILL and dangerously jam side streets at our busiest times of day. I suggest we cut VTA funding and staff to a MINIMUM, sell these extravagant busses, and run 10 passenger vans on the bus routes instead. This would, comfortably, more than handle their small amount of ridership, and at much less cost.

In the 21st century, the majority of people make their stops all in one trip: perhaps the pet store, grocery store, hardware store, Costco or to pick up/drop off children at school. Taking the bus several stops in a day is not only IMPRACTICABLE, but trying to carry groceries, items from department or specialty stores, and pick up your children or complete appointments in this one trip from home is IMPOSSIBLE.

Politicians who back the VTA in this fiasco, are going to pay a huge political price should they run for re-election or try for higher office. The voters don't forget this type of political deception - and we will make sure these candidates are NEVER AGAIN ELECTED in a position to betray the best interest of the public.

The VTA has lost touch with reality - and they hope you have as well. Fortunately, the taxpayers are DONE with the arrogance of the VTA and the money pit it has become, and demands a close to the spigot of greed and waste. NOT ANOTHER DIME OF TAXES to the VTA - and not a SHRED OF SUPPORT for their political lap-dogs.


Vote No more $ for VTA
Gemello
on Apr 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm
Vote No more $ for VTA, Gemello
on Apr 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm

"At a minimum, the pilot could be tried along a 3-mile route, VTA officials reported."

I like the idea of 3 mile test, but try it where there may be a passenger who wants to go to San Jose and back via El Camino!

Oh wait, that could already be in San Jose! Yeah, try it there and leave MV alone.


Shameful
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2016 at 10:59 pm
Shameful, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2016 at 10:59 pm

It's a shame that the anti-bus brigade NIMBY's have messed up this project.

This is reminiscent of the time that similar NIMBY's interfered with VTA's light rail project and turned it into a system with a circuitous route and very slow transit times. They got their way and we all suffer.

Hopefully, our regional government will remember this lesson and vote the preferred dedicated lane option and we can finally have a decent public transportation system on El Camino.


Thank Goodness!
Monta Loma
on Apr 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm
Thank Goodness!, Monta Loma
on Apr 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm

sorry Shameful, everyone sees thru this. Especially "resident" who points out the interesting fact that new busses are so heavily tinted so you can't see how EMPTY THEY ARE.

Last couple weeks I've been driving ECR from Grant in MV to Arastradero, PA between 5 and 6pm. It takes me 15 minutes. After all the comments the last year or so about the dedicated lane and how awful traffic is, I honestly don't think my drive time has been bad. Taking a lane off would make it HORRENDOUS though.


HOV Lane
another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:51 am
HOV Lane, another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:51 am

I don't know because it isn't clear. Wouldn't 2 person carpools, kids in car, ride-sharing, be permitted to use the new HOV lane along with the buses.

Wouldn't be a parking lot if this is true.


HOV Lane
another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:54 am
HOV Lane, another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:54 am

Also Uber, Lift, private buses, ambulance, 2 workers in a plumbing van, taxis, people making right turns. Wouldn't they all be in the lane?

This isn't the dedicated lane idea from before. Much less waste.

Please, unleash your vulgar comments on this issue. Inquiring mind wants to know how you really feel


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 8, 2016 at 7:42 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 8, 2016 at 7:42 am

The VTA is welcome to try an HOV lane on the right. But, unless restrained, the VTA would declare the lanes insufficient and still take the left lanes for its special left-side-loading buses only. That is why we must still VOTE AGAINST the VTA's November sales tax measire. If the measure were to pass, voters would lose the leverage of withholding money from the VTA bureaucracy. The VTA would then be free to do whatever advances its own agenda and financial future.


Robyn
another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 8:53 am
Robyn, another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 8:53 am

This is just another example of an out-of-touch agency generating make work to justify their existence at taxpayer expense.
As was stated by another person, fix the potholes! Then, go away.


No Way To The VTA
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2016 at 9:16 am
No Way To The VTA, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2016 at 9:16 am

A reminder of Joe Simitian's spot on opinion piece published in January 2016:


Joe Simitian: Why VTA should abandon El Camino Bus Rapid Transit project:

Web Link

"A wise man once told me: When you're riding a dead horse, dismount.

Supporters of a Dedicated Lane/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor along El Camino Real would do well to heed that advice." ..." more



DavidR
Registered user
another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:55 pm
DavidR, another community
Registered user
on Apr 8, 2016 at 1:55 pm

I think giving more taxes to VTA is throwing money down a rathole. They want to blow it all on undergrounding Bart to downtown San Jose from just ONE MILE away. To justify that they're going to continue on undergrounding it and abovegrounding it on to Santa Clara. That further extension makes even less sense and it soaks up a lot more money.

Meanwhile, you have High Speed Rail coming up ABOVE GROUND through East San Jose.

However, the HOV lane during commute hours on El Camino Real seems like it might HELP the overall traffic there at those times be encouraging carpooling and travel time shifting, just like it does on the freeway. Actually it should work better than the freeway because it still lets the lane be used for exiting and turning right. It's sort of a combo of HOV and Auxiliary lanes. I can't believe they think they need to RE-DO a whole EIR for this though. That's why it's so expensive and takes so long to set up. It's more of their WASTE WASTE mentality. They could do a negative declaration for such a small change to traffic patterns.

As for BRT, they have that funded, and it's IN SERVICE NOW. They sat on the new buses for the better part of a year, but now they're running each day. They've had "Rapid" service for years. Now they have fancy buses. Clipper Card use eliminates the need for ticket stations. We have BRT today.

If you look in Los Angeles they have a successful record of operating BRT in shared lanes and then after it gets going designating the lanes as HOV during commute hours. It'll be too bad if people look at VTA's TERRIBLE TRACK record and oppose this quite reasonable and cost effective change, even if it will cost more when VTA does it than it did when LA Metro did it. Sigh.


More lies
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm
More lies, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Same old anti-bus and anti-poor citizens who keep making up garbage.

We don't have rapid transit on El Camino. Calling it "Rapid" doesn't make it fast. The problem is that there is too much automobile traffic clogging up the roads. Just yesterday evening I noticed lots of people getting on and off buses, so the empty bus comments are unfounded. Even worse, I personally witnessed hundreds of cars and trucks drive by with ONLY ONE person inside!!!!!

Seems there is a reason that shared transit systems are so helpful and popular in high density areas!

Enough with the lies. Time to support the dedicated lane option and make this a great place to live again.


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on Apr 8, 2016 at 3:58 pm
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on Apr 8, 2016 at 3:58 pm

From timing and content, "More Lies" may have been the same person who posted (under the name "Terrible") similar snarky propaganda in an opportunistic and tasteless comment to the recent story about the poor woman hit by a car on a side street (the sort of side street whose traffic would increase, according to VTA itself, if this "More Lies" type got its way): Web Link


Donal Drump
another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm
Donal Drump, another community
on Apr 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

I celebrate the BRT service we now have on El Camino. BRT is never going to be the same as a train. The BRT service we have now keeps getting better and better. With or without the HOV lane during peak hours, OUTSIDE of peak hours, BRT service is basically as fast as you can do in a car. That is if that car has to stop and let passengers out 15 times between here and San Jose. The HOV lane would address precisely the problem of traffic, but in a reasonable way. It's not anti-transit to note that.

As far as being anti-poor, that's garbage. It makes no difference one way or the other to poor people as compared to not poor. Vi4gT


Doug Pearson
Blossom Valley
on Apr 8, 2016 at 9:57 pm
Doug Pearson, Blossom Valley
on Apr 8, 2016 at 9:57 pm

First, a technical note: I like to click to let specific posts know I like what they said, but for some reason can't do that today.

I frankly don't think it's practical for any bus to go faster than the 522. That's not the only reason I oppose the dedicated BRT lanes, but it's an important one. Te 522 bus is advertised as Rapid but it's not; it's just not as slow as the 22 because it doesn't stop as often and doesn't have to wait at time-points if it's ahead of schedule. Both buses are supposed to obey the speed limits, something some car drivers don't always do.

I'm sure there must be some 22 and 522 buses that are as empty as some posts say, but I actually ride those buses from time to time and I've never been on a 22 or 522 bus with as few as no, or only 2-3, riders. In contrast, I was on a 22 bus one time that was standing room only--and for those big double-size buses, that's a LOT of riders.

The proposed bus/shuttle/HOV/right turn lanes sound like a very practical approach to me. They will be about as full as they are now and so would have a minimal impact on the one-person cars who make up the bulk of vehicles on El Camino Real. As to how effective they would be, the only way to find out would be to give it a try, and I strongly support actual traffic measurements before, during, and (if it doesn't work out) after to actually measure what the impact.

I'm sorry environmental impact studies take so long, but I consider that a fair price to pay to find out what the environmental impact would be--just trying new ideas when/as they are proposed can too easily bring on some nasty environmental surprises. The dirty trick Merlon Geier would have played on the Milk Pail if they had had their way is an example of what I mean.


No New Taxes for VTA
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2016 at 6:16 am
No New Taxes for VTA, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2016 at 6:16 am

Again and again they keep trying to pry money from our wallets. they have currently TWO ongoing taxes they take from us....have you seen any results other than failure and ignorance of their own limitations?

I try to be objective and look back at the benefits that I would expect from this ongoing money take VTA has been engaged in, but all I see is an out of control bureaucracy sucking down MY money without any noticeable benefit to the masses. In fact, they seem to be hell bent on mesing things up for the masses.

Those double long buses? At the corner of Castro and ECR, the south bound had 3 riders at about 5:13. I was able to casually count them at the stop light. VTA needs to fix the potholes and they should have plenty of money for that.

Send the clear message this November: No 3rd tax for VTA, they'll have to make due with the last two they come us into voting for. Not this time though.


Trial Run
Cuesta Park
on Apr 9, 2016 at 8:12 am
Trial Run, Cuesta Park
on Apr 9, 2016 at 8:12 am

I am against BRT and closing down a lane. I would begrudgingly support a very short trial run, just so everyone could see how silly this idea is and a waste of money.


No way
Monta Loma
on Apr 9, 2016 at 9:40 am
No way, Monta Loma
on Apr 9, 2016 at 9:40 am

@Doug please tell me when and where you were on a 22 with standing room only? I have been watching these busses since last summer when I first became aware of this ridiculous plan to take a lane away. I am a stay at home mom, I am running up and down ECR at all hours running errands, schlepping kids to sports and activities....I have NEVER seen a full bus, typically there are less than 5 riders.

Voice, here's an idea for some solid investigative reporting; how about spending one day at a stop, pop your head into every bus that comes by and do a headcount.

I'll make a prediction right now this won't happen as it will prove how empty these busses really are and won't support the push for more $ to the VTA who apparently are in the pockets of not only the Council but also the media.


Resident
Cuesta Park
on Apr 9, 2016 at 10:34 am
Resident, Cuesta Park
on Apr 9, 2016 at 10:34 am

We're not anti-bus and not NIMBYs (I don't see how NIMBYism could have any link to this, but you may be more creative than I am); we're anti-waste and anti-traffic. If the buses had a snowball's chance of not making the problems worse and not losing some ridiculous amount of money per rider, then they would have my full support.


DCM
North Whisman
on Apr 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm
DCM, North Whisman
on Apr 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm

Why must I click on the 2nd site to read the original article? It is released the same day one is labeled news the other is square? The comments are the same?

I have realized that internet site counts the pages loaded for add billing etc. When you look at the top 10 xyz you never see all 10 at once. You must load one at a time resulting in 10X the revenue. So who cares

VTA and VTA workers need to stay employed. 233 million dollars keep a lot of staff working. Even if the are slow and inefficient (Alum Rock)
The concept is honorable but the data is so flawed. 1/2 hour saved for riders for a 5 min impact to traffic just insults the community.

VTA fix the timing of the traffic lights. Your buses will gain 20 min alone with no road construction. (WAG)

Why do I see so many white, grey unmarked buses around? Proof the other buses do not go where workers want or need. Why do I see so many of those buses buses parked during the day? proof that they are not needed all day and only for portion of the morning then at night.


Web Link

Web Link


psr
The Crossings
on Apr 11, 2016 at 8:47 pm
psr, The Crossings
on Apr 11, 2016 at 8:47 pm

REALLY not interested in having VTA run this study, then claim that it shows that they can do their lane grab without any detrimental effects.

If they still want to do their original plan, they must run a test that mimics THAT orientation, including closing ALL the side streets they propose to close, eliminates ALL the left turns they propose to eliminate and all the other juicy little details of their proposal. Unless they are willing to say RIGHT NOW that they are withdrawing their original plan, I am not interested in any modifications that will later be used to claim they have done a comparative study.

What do you say, VTA? Are you willing to tell the truth about what you are planning?


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 12, 2016 at 8:33 pm

The only way to stop the left (median) lane grab is to vote NO on the VTA's sales tax increase measure. Because, once the VTA gets another tax measure passed, it will not care in the least what voters think of taking lanes for its buses only.


Lucky Accident
another community
on Apr 13, 2016 at 1:17 am
Lucky Accident, another community
on Apr 13, 2016 at 1:17 am

Luckily, VTA plans to blow more than half of the additional tax money on a wasteful boondoogle to underground BART from Berryessa on through downtown San Jose and on to Santa Clara. We're talking $3 Billion dollars!

That's a much better reason to vote NO on any more tax money for VTA!!!


Name hidden
Shoreline West

on Apr 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Name hidden, Shoreline West

on Apr 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm

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


VTA = Pig at trough
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm
VTA = Pig at trough, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm

VTA is way out of control and well out of the bounds of their abilities.
We should absolutely not send one more penny in their direction. They are currently enjoying TWO active taxes the voters provided to them some years ago. I think they've eaten enough of our hard earned money. All we see is the bloat. I would like them to retool, cut overhead and come back lean and efficient. Right now VTA is bloated and failing miserably at everything they try to do...with no consequences I might add


True
Blossom Valley
on Apr 18, 2016 at 9:09 am
True, Blossom Valley
on Apr 18, 2016 at 9:09 am

Two great comments above that deserve to be repeated:

a) The Voice ABSOLUTELY should send out a couple of junior staff to do a 1 week, all day ridership survey. Let's see what the butts:seats ratio is on these busses

b) I too advocate a test. But it needs to be a test of the full program. Cone off the lanes, block the left turns, go to a full implementation of the program for 1 entire month. Let MV residents see what an utter disaster this will be and then lets compare the results vs VTA's "projections".


Only 6 riders on the 22 this morning
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Only 6 riders on the 22 this morning, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 12:43 pm

At 8:07 today the 22 extra long bus went south along El Camino near Castro and 237. I counted 6 people in it.
I may start bringing a camera as i see empty buses like this all the time, yes, even during peak hours.


Five more than...
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Five more than..., Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Six riders is still five more than were in your car.... Most cars clogging the roads hold only the driver. Shared transit is the only option for the rapidly expanding El Camino. Going up or down is impractical. Widening is not possible without a lot of eminent domain actions. Dedicated transit lane works and will work here.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm

You have to admire the persistence of
the VTA employee, consutant, want-to-be contractor and/or anti-car fanatic who insists that six passengers on a bus for 40 is better than one person in most cars and reason enough for bus-only lanes on El Camino. Those six passengers will likely not even reach their desired destinations without further transit. But pay no attention to that! Keep posting you VTA advocates. The VTA's planned sales tax increase measure is gaining more opposition by the day.


Voting yes
Cuesta Park
on Apr 18, 2016 at 2:40 pm
Voting yes, Cuesta Park
on Apr 18, 2016 at 2:40 pm

That's so true! Cars are mostly empty, cause the most accidents, pollute the environment, etc... Now I'm definitely voting to give VTA the money they need to build out our transportation infrastructure.


Wastefull and Inefficient
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Wastefull and Inefficient, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 3:07 pm

The one good thing that has come from VTA's bungling of BRT is that now the community is watching VTA, learning about their vast history of failures, trying to find any big project that was a "Win", and coming to the realization that this is an archaic bureaucracy sucking down tax payer money like iced tea, and producing the same by product when it is digested: A big puddle of yuck.

The worst thing that VTA could have done to itself was to create an environment of public scrutiny: "What is that organization really doing with all this money we continue to give them and how is it benefiting the masses at all?"

Unfortunately for them, the damage is way past the healing point. VTA really screwed themselves over on this one....more bungling by the VTA; anything they try to do they fail at, including manipulation of the voting public to try to get a 3rd tax put on families. That would be THREE ongoing taxes they want to suck from our wallets. This vote will be an easy one for me to cast.


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2016 at 4:37 pm

"VTA is not focused on moving people where they want to go. VTA is focused on moving people where VTA wants them to go."

-- Mayor Barry Chang of Cupertino, speaking in Mountain View, April 12, 2016.


Empty Buses
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 5:36 pm
Empty Buses, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 5:36 pm

VTA: Ride the bus up and down ECR!!!

Public: But I have no need to travel up and down ECR, I only ECR it briefly to get to my actual commute route. Do you have any help for me there?

VTA: No, not at all, but if we take away a lane maybe then you'll ride the bus?

Public: Again, no, it is pointless to try and travel up ECR on a bus when I don't need to do it and couldn't get to my destination when I get off the bus.

VTA: But we can get you up ECR faster if we take a lane away for our buses,

Public: So your saying "We can't take you where you need to go, but we can punish you for not getting on our bus but can take you where you do not want to go"?

VTA: EXACTLY! Now, we'll also need to add on a 3rd tax because we cannot do all this with the existing 2 taxes we're currently taking from you, so please bend over, er, I mean open your wallets again and give us more money to continue doing things like this.


@Empty Head
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 6:18 pm
@Empty Head, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 6:18 pm

Keep trying to convince yourself that letting El Camino continue to be a gridlocked mess is the best solution for all.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2016 at 6:51 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 18, 2016 at 6:51 pm

No one is fooled by VTA posts anymore. The proposal for an experimental HOV lane on the right may be worth a try. But bus-only lanes on the left (loading in the middle of the roadway) would destroy El Camino as a street to travel on or even to get across. Businesses on El Camino would go broke as too few customers would venture into the giant traffic jam in the remaining two lanes. Moreover, even express-bus goers would not stop along El Camino to walk so far to a business there. The occasional express bus would stop in the median every mile. Think about it -unless you work for the VTA.


Robert
another community
on Apr 18, 2016 at 7:45 pm
Robert, another community
on Apr 18, 2016 at 7:45 pm

Absolutely nobody rides the bus... But we'll scream bloody murder at even the suggestion of reducing service.


No choice
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm
No choice, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm

There is more development happening on El Camino than any other street in the Bay Area. More people-moving capacity is needed, yet adding lanes for automobile traffic is not feasible. The only reasonable solution is a dedicated lane for mass transit.

It's that simple.


I used to like VTA
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:38 am
I used to like VTA, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:38 am

That has all changed over the pat couple of years.
Seeing the "Shove it don their throats" attitude of the VTA poster, I'm excited to begin denying VTA any support. What a bunch of selfish ego driven imbeciles.

Its taking more and more restraint not to spit on the Supervisor pickup trucks I always see around town. They are the enemy trying to steal money from my family. Its as simple as that.


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:29 am
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:29 am

No choice has it exactly right. The VTA wants to give us NO CHOICE. The anti-car people want to give us NO CHOICE. And many in the political class want to give us NO CHOICE.

But ask yourselves these questions:

Why are the VTA Supervisors driving cars and trucks? Should they be taking VTA buses or lightrail?
Why are the same politicians that tell us that we need to get out of our cars not leading by example and giving up theirs?
How is it that 30 to 50% of people who post online say that people need to get out of their cars, but the amount of traffic keeps increasing?


Don't be fooled!


Also, I do not believe that the so-called "Pilot" is anything of the kind! A 2-4 year pilot program is nothing more than a Trojan horse de facto implementation! Just as with the failed paid parking program, it will be said that more time and study is needed, or will be declared a success no matter how much of a fiasco it turns into and we'll never be rid of it.

I suggest a pilot program where the VTA learns to live within its means like we all have to! How about them balancing their budget without asking tax payers for another free ride?



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


@Empty Busses
Monta Loma
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm
@Empty Busses, Monta Loma
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm

Best explanation yet. Ha, well done!


Agreed
Cuesta Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Agreed, Cuesta Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:30 pm

The center bus lane looks great! It will be wonderful to hop on and head to my fave restaurant without dealing with driving, traffic and parking. Good for health and the environment!

So glad to be living in Mountain View; a city with the courage to vote to support the plan! Kudos to the Council for voting with their brains and conscience rather than pandering to the few, vocal right wingers that still live here


^^Him^^
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm
^^Him^^, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Hahaha. Reading this page, its like seeing everyone in a crowded square during a rain storm, talking about how much its coming down, except one guy who thinks its sunny out.


Dawn
Stierlin Estates
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Dawn, Stierlin Estates
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:48 pm

That guy you speak of is usually the Village Idiot. Hypothetically of course, not anyone here.


MVBiker
Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2016 at 5:16 pm
MVBiker , Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2016 at 5:16 pm

Calling most of our fellow residents "Village Idiots" once again proves the validity of the bus lane plan. When one has no facts on their side, the usual result is name calling and conspiracy theories. I'm also pleased that our city is supporting VTA's plan to speed up bus service!


^^Icy 1 Now^^
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:35 pm
^^Icy 1 Now^^, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:35 pm
Charles
Bailey Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Charles, Bailey Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 pm

I don't support much of anything VTA has ever proposed including light rail. I hate being right but at least others seem to see it now too.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 20, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 20, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Did you see the article in the Mercury News about how VTA ridership has declined even in the face of increased traffic congestion. As long as buses and light rail do not get folks where they need or want to go, ridership will probably not rebound. On the other hand, there are probably VTA supporters, shall we call them, who would like to outlaw cars completely. Then, you could find a bus or stay home


VTA doesn't get it
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 pm
VTA doesn't get it, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 pm

Not surprising people are abandoning VTA. Like the quote above says, they only want to move people where VTA wants them to move, not where they need to move. At this point I feel Santa Clara County without VTA would be like a fish without a bicycle.


Duh
Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2016 at 1:51 pm
Duh, Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Wait.. Decreased ridership with increasing traffic congestion?! I guess the automobile-caused gridlock is delaying the bus routes so much it is affecting ridership!

Duh! That is why a dedicated bus lane is needed on El Camino! It is the number one issue with that route and will be solved through the center lane BRT option.

Even the detractors from this sensible plan end up advocating for it!


Strike 12
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Strike 12, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Duh, No, you guessed wrong. As most everyone has commented, the route up ECR is useless as a commute route. That is why there are less people commuting on it as their main commute route. The traffic on ECR is only backed up during peak hours and only by people using it for very short distances. The buses are empty all the time, even when traffic is not backed up. That is because VTA only wants to move people where VTA wants to move people, not where they need to move. I think that's why even our county supervisor has spoken out against using ECR in this way. It's like adding additional rails to lightrail, saying that's all it needs to increase ridership on that also failed VTA project.


Shary
Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 20, 2016 at 3:50 pm
Shary, Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 20, 2016 at 3:50 pm

The VTA is well aware of the massive opposition to this impractical and useless plan, as evidenced by the (very obvious) VTA employees/hirelings frantically posting in favor of this fiasco. Just stop...nobody is fooled. Why don't we have a vote by the taxpayers of Mountain View to see if this is considered something on which we want our dollars spent? (However, a vote won't happen, because VTA would be humiliated in defeat.)
I still say sell the extravagant and greatly underused double busses, and use 10-12 passenger vans instead. VTA could greatly increase the route structure and go where people want to go, as well as cut their bloated budget. It would still make cars necessary for the multi-stop days necessary in modern life - but the VTA could possibly be relevant again. Staying in budget is quite necessary, as the will NEVER get an additional dime from voters.


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Apr 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm

Well shary, there WILL be a vote, the VTA IS planning on asking for a half cent tax increase on the November ballot. As much as everyone here is coming out opposed to it, unless we get a very good message out to a very large number of people I fear that it will be approved.

They always couch these ballot measures in terms that look like "of course, why not, why WOULDNT we vote for this". and unfortunately the majority seem intent on just voting money away not knowing really what they're voting for.


Half Sense
another community
on Apr 20, 2016 at 8:10 pm
Half Sense, another community
on Apr 20, 2016 at 8:10 pm

If they really were serious about having it pass, they wouldn't call it a half sense sales tax. Forget about it.


Not all support VTA
Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 20, 2016 at 9:25 pm
Not all support VTA , Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 20, 2016 at 9:25 pm

I read that all MV residents support the VTA project. I completely disagree! From my conservations with friends and neighbors, I would say it is more like 75 percent support with 25 percent against. Of those that are in opposition, it looks like they would object to ANY project that would raise taxes--really a political-religious issue.

A couple people I talked to knew nothing about the project until the controversy was reported. They decided to support the VTA plan based on the project documents and study. Almost as importantly, the arguments against the project are without substance. Insults, cries of conspiracy and blaming the transit agency for things outside their control. Even Joe simitian's recent opposition is politically motivated--he admits this openly.

So yeah.. Not all support having good bus service, but most do.


@not all support VTA
Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 pm
@not all support VTA, Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 pm

Really? We ALL want a good bus service, who would turn down a good bus service? Or actually, WHY would anyone turn down a good bus service? A GOOD service would be a plus for everyone in the community for all the reasons purported in all the previous posts.

The problem is that what the VTA proposes is anything BUT good.

Sigh.


MV Resident
Old Mountain View
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:43 pm
MV Resident, Old Mountain View
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:43 pm

The center-dedicated-lanes proposal is dead. At least, I hope so.

VTA's insistence on this destructive and unrealistic idea has put their sales tax measure in jeopardy. They know it, and that's why the shared-lane proposal has replaced it.

The region needs better bus service, but this debacle has left me with a very negative view of VTA management, and I will be voting no.


Interesting
Bailey Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:38 am
Interesting, Bailey Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:38 am

"There is more development happening on El Camino than any other street in the Bay Area. More people-moving capacity is needed, yet adding lanes for automobile traffic is not feasible. The only reasonable solution is a dedicated lane for mass transit.

It's that simple."

This point is well taken. Thank you for providing an intelligent and succinct summary of the situation.


I'm also voting no
Cuesta Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 7:11 am
I'm also voting no, Cuesta Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 7:11 am

Time to send VTA a message. They'll soon see how many people were against BRT and how angry they became at VTA. This one is going to set the agency back for some time to come. They need to downsize middle management.


Investing
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 8:04 am
Investing, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 8:04 am

My family's philosophy is to support investments in transportation infrastructure. It is very disappointing to see people enjoying the investments the previous generation made while we refuse to do the same!

A few of my die-hard republican friends believe in "small government" so will vote against anything done by our elected officials. Well, not anything. They love wars and will encourage their congresspeople to support military actions. Of course, when FUNDING those wars, they would rather the money come from social welfare programs than their own pocket.

A tiny half cent sales tax increase to bring us into the 21st century transit-wise is a small price to pay. Voting Yes!


The Voters can bring about change
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 am
The Voters can bring about change, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 9:42 am

The way I look at it, we can pay for junk or decide not to pay for junk.
I may need a new couch, but that doesn't mean I'll buy trash just because the store only offers trash. Wasting money with VTA used to be OK. Not so anymore, it's gone on too far.


What have they done with our money?
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 9:48 am
What have they done with our money?, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 9:48 am

They are currently enjoying TWO ongoing taxes that we pay for. That's enough, we are not an endless money machine supporting failure after failure.

If anyone could put up a list of 3 or 4 VTA success stories that our taxes have gone to, it might be different, but I don't think anyone can do that without exaggerating or lying.


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:00 am
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:00 am

"Investing" with other people's money and without their permission is usually called "THEFT". One does not have to be a Republican to have this common sense point of view. I note that anyone who disagrees with paying confiscatory taxes to pay for half-baked public schemes like HSR, and BRT lanes, is subject to being called derogatory names or being classified as identifying with a particular political party in order to try to invalidate their valid points by discrediting them or ridiculing them. This is a very old Alinsky political trick.

It also amazes me that there are so many people that think that just because they have money to burn to "invest" in the hundreds or thousands of public sector projects they like, that all the rest of us do too. I would like to be able to "invest" in my own children's future, but unlike these rich public sector philanthropists, I barely earn enough to make it here and I think that I can decide for myself how I want to pend MY money.

As far as people "enjoying the investments of the previous generation", this is more nonsense. Take a look at how much people pay per gallon in gasoline taxes which are supposed to be going to support the infrastructure and then ask yourself where all that money is going, because it sure isn't going to fund fixing the roads like we were promised! People today are paying much more than their share to support these bloated public agencies and programs that will never break even.

Regarding funding wars, no one wants to be in a war. NO ONE. However, if you look at the CONSTITUTION, guess what? It actually authorizes the Federal Government to pay for and conduct wars. Almost none of these "investments" is even mentioned in the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that NO ONE has ever asked for local taxes to be raised to pay for wars. Please note how those who call for "Investment" will conflate completely unrelated premises and issues in order to confuse people and/or set them against one another by introducing hot-button issues instead of sticking to facts.

Don't fall for these tactics and don't be bullied into supporting another boondoggle project.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View



Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:00 am
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:00 am

"Investing" with other people's money and without their permission is usually called "THEFT". One does not have to be a Republican to have this common sense point of view. I note that anyone who disagrees with paying confiscatory taxes to pay for half-baked public schemes like HSR, and BRT lanes, is subject to being called derogatory names or being classified as identifying with a particular political party in order to try to invalidate their valid points by discrediting them or ridiculing them. This is a very old Alinsky political trick.

It also amazes me that there are so many people that think that just because they have money to burn to "invest" in the hundreds or thousands of public sector projects they like, that all the rest of us do too. I would like to be able to "invest" in my own children's future, but unlike these rich public sector philanthropists, I barely earn enough to make it here and I think that I can decide for myself how I want to pend MY money.

As far as people "enjoying the investments of the previous generation", this is more nonsense. Take a look at how much people pay per gallon in gasoline taxes which are supposed to be going to support the infrastructure and then ask yourself where all that money is going, because it sure isn't going to fund fixing the roads like we were promised! People today are paying much more than their share to support these bloated public agencies and programs that will never break even.

Regarding funding wars, no one wants to be in a war. NO ONE. However, if you look at the CONSTITUTION, guess what? It actually authorizes the Federal Government to pay for and conduct wars. Almost none of these "investments" is even mentioned in the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that NO ONE has ever asked for local taxes to be raised to pay for wars. Please note how those who call for "Investment" will conflate completely unrelated premises and issues in order to confuse people and/or set them against one another by introducing hot-button issues instead of sticking to facts.

Don't fall for these tactics and don't be bullied into supporting another boondoggle project.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View



What to do?
Monta Loma
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:14 pm
What to do?, Monta Loma
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:14 pm

Jim and "What Have They Done" , could not agree more. Obviously these two previous taxes are not brought up by VTA and are forgotten by the majority of regular folks. How do we get a message out to more people? This board is typically a better informed group, a small minority of the voting public, how do we get the msg out on a bigger scale?

I'm truly serious about getting involved in a bigger level, I am extremely ticked off that they continue to push these agendas behind our backs and misrepresent everything to a generally uninformed and very naive public


I want to work as well
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:17 pm
I want to work as well, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:17 pm

I will be ready to add my services wherever I can help in opposition to this 3rd VTA tax. Its all about getting the word out, just like we did with BRT after we discovered the obvious manipulation of the council.
Let's get Joe Simitian's attention again, haha :)


I want to work as well
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:21 pm
I want to work as well, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:21 pm

Also, let's keep calling it what is factually is: a 3rd tax on us by VTA. I'm sure That will resonate in the ears of the voters just as it did when I first heard about it / realized it.
It's not a transit tax, its a 3rd VTA tax, and IMO 2 is more than enough.


Shary
Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Shary, Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:00 pm

Name a location - Starbucks, library or wherever - for a meeting, and I'm ready to organize informing the public about VTA bloat, greed and arrogance. Yes, making clear that this would be a THIRD TAX is vital. Another VTA tax is dead in the water once taxpayers realize the massive waste and misdirection the current two exhibit.

Contrary to what the VTA employee (@not all support VTA) posted, only a tiny number of Mountain View taxpayers support this wasteful and counter-productive fiasco. His statement that he read "all MV residents support the VTA project" but that he believes "only 75% do" was such a pathetically transparent attempt to alter reality, that it made me laugh! I have to admire his desperation in posting what is flagrantly untrue, hoping the public will be fooled, but it didn't work.

The VTA needs to grow up, live within their already bloated budget, gain some financial responsibility and provide what the TAXPAYERS want - not just bully ahead with their consistent failures . Not another penny to the VTA.


Irresponsible
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:07 pm
Irresponsible , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:07 pm

Whoa. Jim represented the conservative view best. He showed complete ignorance on how our current transit infrastructure was originally funded and how it is currently maintained. Gas tax does not cover the bill. The roadways are subsidized.

Fortunately, this is a done deal in MV. Last year, the city council voted to support the bus lane and unless they re-vote on the subject, the council members are ethically obligated to continue that support.

Most of the rhetoric from the bus haters has no substance. Not a single one of them has offered a solution to getting people around on the gridlocked El Camino. They continue to espouse a "do nothing" approach, claiming that fast and efficient transit on el Camino is unnecessary! Ridiculous!


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:36 pm
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:36 pm

Talk about irresponsible.....so you want to continue to encourage a hairbrained scheme for the VTA to take lanes and create MORE gridlock?

I'm in for the meet. Name a time and place Shary. Love the "3rd tax" suggestion. This is definitely a time when its NOT a charm LOL!


On Board
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm
On Board, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm

The (single) VTA shill here has motivated me on this more than any other issue. Thanks for the kick in the pants, I'm ready.


Lets apply VTA's logic
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Lets apply VTA's logic, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Here's the VTA's latest argument: We have no other choice so we must do BRT.

Lets apply that logic in another situation: You're looking for a chair because you need to sit down. Someone hands you a sword and says "Have a seat on this" You say "No thanks, that's the worst idea I have ever heard"
They come back in a huff and say "Well I don't see any other plan from you, I don't see another chair around, so obviously you must sit on this sword, it's the ONLY way.

Look for yourself, you will see them make this argument above...You first VTA, I'll hold the sword steady for you


Darin
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Darin, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on Apr 21, 2016 at 3:23 pm

@Irresponsible

Being opposed to the VTA's current BRT proposal does not make one a "bus hater". Using such language does not strengthen your argument.

And some of us think that the VTA's current BRT proposal would degrade transportation along El Camino Real for both bus users and car users. As such, "doing nothing" is an improvement over the VTA's current BRT proposal, because the status quo is better than what the VTA is proposing.


Common sense
Old Mountain View
on Apr 21, 2016 at 4:24 pm
Common sense, Old Mountain View
on Apr 21, 2016 at 4:24 pm

- It's possible that the defensive VTA shilling seen in this and other threads is all from just one person. The "screen name" changes constantly (even within one thread), but the message doesn't, or the spiteful petty rhetoric ("anti-bus brigade NIMBY's," "anti-bus and anti-poor citizens," "Enough with the lies").

- Those interested in getting more word out: I suggest to seek out and work with Supervisor Joe Simitian's office. Speaking in Mountain View not long ago, he mentioned that he'd asked his staff to look into where money had gone for projects in the county, and found that something like 80% of funds from the current two VTA sales-tax increases we're now paying went to VTA's pet BART project that will (at best) benefit some citizens in the south County -- but is far down on the transportation priorities for the rest of the County (Los Altos, Palo Alto, Cupertino, MV), who pay for so much of it. VTA sold those taxes to the public, promising to address a long list of urgent "projects" -- but once the taxes were approved, prioritized them at VTA's own whim.


Jake
Cuesta Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Jake, Cuesta Park
on Apr 21, 2016 at 4:44 pm

Wow-what rudeness. Both a traffic study and ANOTHER study validates the conclusion that a center bus lane would provide the most benefit for a minimal cost. In fact, it SAVES millions of dollars annually in operating costs!

Calling people shills because they agree with the side that has the facts on their side is simply a form of name-calling. Thank goodness we have elected officials that have the final say.

You people just want to use your cars and don't want any money to be spent on alternatives. That is just so selfish. If there truly was a majority of residents that opposed this project, then why aren't there demonstrations at City Hall? Stop trying to sell the idea that the city at large is opposed to having a quick, reliable, inexpensive and green way to get around.


@jake
Monta Loma
on Apr 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm
@jake, Monta Loma
on Apr 21, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Sigh indeed
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm
Sigh indeed, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 5:57 pm

I guess that's all that he's left with for now, but he'll re-tool and come back. It won't be any fresher, but he'll be back.


Joke
another community
on Apr 21, 2016 at 7:09 pm
Joke, another community
on Apr 21, 2016 at 7:09 pm

I think there was a typo in the name of that poster back 2 posts. He's got to be kidding.


And the survey says...
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 8:29 pm
And the survey says..., Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 8:29 pm

Almost all of the posts above are from the same old "Vote NO To The VTA". As proof, there will now be empathetic denials...

BTW, I saw the 522 drop off 14 people this evening. I guess nobody told the bus it was empty.


Shary
Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:36 pm
Shary, Martens-Carmelita
on Apr 21, 2016 at 10:36 pm

@and the survey says - your word choice makes as much sense as your argument. I believe the word you were searching for was "emphatic" not "empathetic". Nice try, though.

And yes, you can try to create your own reality and continue your delusion, but a vote of the people will EASILY prove you wrong. The opposition is strong - and your fabrications only make us stronger. The VTA lane-grab would bring El Camino to a STANDSTILL, GRIDLOCK all side streets from Foothill to Central Expressway, tear out over 300 mature trees, and KILL BUSINESSES along the road by removing street parking.

The VTA's plan is poorly thought out and WASTES MULTI-MILLIONS of tax dollars they are ALREADY receiving from us. As a previous poster said, if all we are offered is junk, we have every right NOT to buy that junk. The VTA is already failing us with their TWO CURRENT TAXES. It would be insane to give them a third. NO THIRD TAX TO VTA.


ERC is a connector commute route
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 22, 2016 at 8:56 am
ERC is a connector commute route, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 22, 2016 at 8:56 am

People use it to get to the freeways. Where is VTA's plan for East/WEest Commute from ECR???
THAT is where people ARE commuting, not up E CR. A competent transit authority would be focused on East/West to get a majority of cars off the road.

BRT just forces cars off ECR onto surface streets to then connect to their main commute route. It does not get people into the buses, because people do not need to travel up and down ECR. It's ALL about the East/West commute from ECR if you want to make a dent in commute traffic. VTA has no plan for that one, likely because it would require competency and complex thought.

It's becoming crystalline clear: VTA only wants to move people where VTA wants them to move, not where they need to move.


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Apr 26, 2016 at 8:09 am
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on Apr 26, 2016 at 8:09 am

It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who is against the VTA's latest boondoggle scheme is "anti-bus" or espousing a 'conservative" point of view. Especially when referring to my comments. I have been using public transportation almost exclusively for 5 years now, INCLUDING VTA BUSES. So I have a very clear view of their efficacy.

Most of the time, I have to walk to where I want to go wishing Mountain View because I can either get there faster on foot, the routes do not exist for where I want to go, or the routes do not go there at the times I need to go (like weekends or nights).

Another ridiculous argument is classifying people who choose to drive as being selfish! Good grief! When did owning and driving a car become a criminal act? It is this type of thinking that I find truly frightening. This is supposed to be a "free" country where people decide for themselves how they want to conduct their own lives. But there is a growing movement of people who think that people need to be subject to what is best for the "collective" and want to decide every aspect of life for everyone else. The problem with that is who makes those decisions?

Freedom of movement is one of the things that allow us to be productive and to determine how we conduct our own lives. Being able to move quickly and efficiently also increases our personal and professional productivity. The VTA is one of the most inefficient public transportation systems I have ever seen, and I have lived in a lot of different cities.

The bottom line is that the BRT lane project i nothing more than an attempt to force people into using an inefficient service that has lot 20% of its ridership since 2001. If as we are being told, the majority of people are in favor of riding the VTA and getting out of their cars, no one is stopping them from doing it. Just don't force anyone else to, and don't clog our neighborhoods with traffic to create an express lane for empty buses!

As for me, after 5 years, I've had enough! I'm getting back into my car!


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


Amazing
Waverly Park
on Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm
Amazing, Waverly Park
on Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Hey, it's the height of rush hour and I just saw 2 people get off the 22. TWO!!

And there were still three riding. Three whole people on that nice big bus!

Oh, and ECR is moving along just fine right now.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 8:18 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

The VTA is only asking what people want because it plans to place on the November ballot a county-wide sales tax increase measure against which it could borrow some $6 billion. If that measuer passes, the VTA will be free to ask nothing - just do whatever it pleases with El Camino and every other street in the county. Get ready to VOTE NO.


Voting YES!
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2016 at 10:51 am
Voting YES!, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2016 at 10:51 am

I am greatly pleased to read that they continue to solicit input on BRT.. Even though a comprehensive traffic study has demonstrated a massive improvement to bus service for a small impact to auto traffic, it is nice that the organization is mature enough to strive for continuous improvement.

Our elected representatives on the City Council have expressed the community's approval of the project, so we can all look forward to a great transit future!

I'm voting YES on the sales tax measure, because I believe that we should pay our bills. Most of the opposing voices would NEVER vote for ANY taxes anyway.


Smile
Waverly Park
on Apr 30, 2016 at 11:27 am
Smile, Waverly Park
on Apr 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

Ah, Voting Yes, you're always good for a laugh


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 11:32 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 11:32 am

Only one mem er of the City Council might still favor bus-only lanes: Candidate Kasperzak. Then again, he did say earlier this month that maybe we should just get rid of the VTA.


Steve Ly
another community
on Apr 30, 2016 at 6:02 pm
Steve Ly, another community
on Apr 30, 2016 at 6:02 pm

I do not understand why anyone would vote for another VTA sales tax, since we're already paying three and a disproportionate share goes to BART.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 7:44 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on Apr 30, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Anyone interested in what candidate Kasperzak had to say about the VTA at the April 5 city council study session may click the "media" link for the meeting at the City site and jump ahead to 1:04 into the meeting. Anyone care? Probably not.


Dump Trump!
Old Mountain View
on May 1, 2016 at 6:42 am
Dump Trump!, Old Mountain View
on May 1, 2016 at 6:42 am

Wow. It's as if these people have never read or at least never understood the project plans. The taxes to bring great transit to our area is TRIVIAL compared to what people spend on their daily coffee addiction.

So tired of reading the same right-wing garbage philosophy that all but destroyed our economy under Bush. Taxes are not inherently a bad thing. We get together as a community and PAY for shared infrastructure.

My god, even in Bush's war against Arabic nations, the parents of the soldiers had to buy Kevlar vests, because of this right-wing rule of lowering taxes no matter what l! Troops died because of this. Please stop your insanity!


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 1, 2016 at 7:34 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 1, 2016 at 7:34 am

Maybe the VTA could propose a tax on corporate employers. What would the corporate lobbying group calling itself the "Silicon Valley Leadership Group" say about that? Probably that the inept VTA should just go away.


The looming tsunami
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 1, 2016 at 7:49 am
The looming tsunami, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 1, 2016 at 7:49 am


"So tired of reading the same right-wing garbage philosophy that all but destroyed our economy under Bush. Taxes are not inherently a bad thing. We get together as a community and PAY for shared infrastructure."

~~~~~~~~~~~

And, while no one is paying attention, this looming tsunami is going to come crashing down on all of us. Our taxes are not making a dent in these unfunded pension liabilities -- where is THAT money going??? It's a house of cards. It's not sustainable and it's gonna crash. Hard. Wake up people.


Unfunded Pension Liability:

Palo Alto CURRENTLY is carrying an estimated $447.5 million in unfunded pension and health care liabilities. Read.

Web Link

Fiscal year 2013, the city of Mountain View (as reported in the Daily Post 12/30/14) was carrying $167.9 million in UNFUNDED liabilities.

Fiscal year 2103, Santa Clara County (as reported in the Daily Post 12/30/14)
was carrying $2.6 BILLION in UNFUNDED liabilities.

Web Link

"Here's how much cities, counties and special districts in the mid-Peninsula have in pension debt.

"Unfunded liability" refers to the amount of money these agencies are short in their pension funds and have no plan to repay."


If anyone is really interested in learning just how bad things are spend time time reading this blog:

Here's how much cities, counties, and special districts in the mid-Peninsula have in pension debt.

Web Link


The looming tsunami
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 1, 2016 at 8:04 am
The looming tsunami, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 1, 2016 at 8:04 am

Meant to add this link too:

Web Link

Inside Source Special Report: Stanford Economics Professor Roger Noll Says State "Pension Problem" is the "Single Biggest Public Policy Problem" in California Politics Today:

snip...

"From an economics perspective, California businesses should worry about the "pension problem" more than the state's regulatory climate or any other issues because it has the potential to "tank" the whole state and local system of government, including its education system, infrastructure programs, and workforce development among other public functions of California government.

"They should get it," Noll said, noting that the business community knows that the pension problem was responsible for destroying the automobile sector before debts and pension plans were restructured. But he still says he is surprised that the California business community has not been more proactive in addressing the state's public employee pension crisis.

Noll said the pension problem is having a negative affect on the ability of state and local governments to fund important infrastructure programs. When asked about the Governor's token appropriation in the January budget of $500 million for infrastructure maintenance, Noll said the state should be paying 5-6 times that or more to build and maintain annual infrastructure."

~~~~~

Don't ignore the looming tsunami, believing that simply focusing on infrastructure maintenance, etc. -- and ignoring the elephant in the room is sustainable, doing so will doom us all.




MV Resident
Old Mountain View
on May 1, 2016 at 6:03 pm
MV Resident, Old Mountain View
on May 1, 2016 at 6:03 pm

@Vote NO - "Anyone interested in what candidate Kasperzak had to say about the VTA at the April 5 city council study session may click the "media" link for the meeting at the City site and jump ahead to 1:04 into the meeting."

Thanks for this. It's amusing to see Mike speaking so negatively about VTA, now that he is trying to get elected to the Assembly. He obviously knows which way the wind is blowing.

A few minutes earlier in the meeting, Lenny Siegel comments that all the high-density housing that is planned for ECR could create gridlock up and down ECR if nothing is done. Then he worries that the new scaled-back proposal might make things worse, not better, pushing traffic into the neighborhoods. He wasn't even talking about the dedicated-lanes proposal, which had far more destructive potential, but according to Lenny, would not "pass political muster."

The dedicated-lanes idea was part of a larger vision that included very high density development along ECR and other "transit corridors," made feasible with the simple-minded fantasy that large numbers of residents could be persuaded, or forced, to give up auto use and switch "modes" to bikes and buses. An accompanying fantasy is that new residents would be young engineer types who don't own cars. That has been a pitch we've gotten from Chris Clark, when the Council approved developments without adequate parking. Call me cynical, but I think Council's embrace of these fantasies has everything to do with currying the favor of developers. Mike in particular has for years been the developers' BFF.

Dedicated-lanes BRT is dead, i hope. As for this scaled-back proposal, I'm not so sure it would be an improvement. I'd suggest that VTA shelve it and work on better East-West service. As for a new VTA sales tax, it will not get my vote.


Jeff
Cuesta Park
on May 2, 2016 at 1:55 am
Jeff, Cuesta Park
on May 2, 2016 at 1:55 am

Hmmmm.... I was opposed to the bus lane cause my neighbor said it would cause big traffic. But then I read the study and saw how fast it would be to travel up and down el Camino! Now I'm in full support of it.

I understand the desire to have the county fund transit for the rich tech workers, but I wonder if that should be a priority? The massively profitable companies are funding that. But what about the sub-6 figured income? Fast buses would benefit them. So much cheaper and they go everywhere. All that is needed is to speed up certain routes like El Camino.

Thanks for this discussion. It forced me to read the source material and not just a bunch of anecdotal "the sky is falling" predictions.


Laughing!
Cuesta Park
on May 2, 2016 at 3:30 am
Laughing!, Cuesta Park
on May 2, 2016 at 3:30 am

Earth to Jeff, You and your fellow VTA employees need to face the fact that the residents of Mountain View don't have the low IQs you are assuming, and nor are they so easily duped by your laughably fake "realizations" you post here. For example: You were against VTA's lane grab "and then you read the source material and changed your mind"? And bringing El Camino and all side streets to a crawl is good in your opinion, because the "El Camino busses go everywhere"? No.... El Camino busses do not go everywhere - they just dump their four or five riders off along the road and those people must find another way to their real destination.

I can understand that you and your fellow VTA employees are panicked that your money spigot will be turned off, but maybe you should have thought of that and actually created a public transportation system that gets people where they want to go. (Here's a clue: that is NOT up and down El Camino.) You have had one failure after another - why would any sane person vote for a THIRD tax for your benefit?

The VTA's arrogance and tremendous waste of our taxpayer money is being exposed more very day, and posting your fake "VTA is great" messages on public boards fools no one. Taxpayers are not going to give the VTA a THIRD tax to waste along with the two they are wasting currently.

Your delusions and phony supportive posts for this massive failure of a system are transparent and tiresome. You've embarrassed yourself enough. Like another poster said, "JUST STOP".


Laughing more
Waverly Park
on May 2, 2016 at 8:51 am
Laughing more, Waverly Park
on May 2, 2016 at 8:51 am

Omg, do they not realize how their language gives them up? Jeff/Jake/Voting yes, stop it already!


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 9:26 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 9:26 am

MV Resident made some good points that VTA employees and consultants posting online will not address. But MV Resident closed with a reference to Candidate Kasperzak's having been the "developers' BFF." I am not sure he has been their very best friend on this City Council. But also, I thought "BFF" meant "best female friend." if you are saying Kasperzak is female and he is female, that could actually transform him into a viable candidate. Because, as it stands, Kasperzak's own dog (if he has one) would not vote for him.


ok ridership
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 2, 2016 at 9:39 am
ok ridership, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on May 2, 2016 at 9:39 am

Just to provide a counter anecdote, I rode the 522 for the first time last Thursday, from Showers to Castro. For that short stretch, there were about 25 people on board, and there was a 22 right in front of us that looked like it had 10 or 15 more.

I personally think a dedicated transit lane is inevitable, but now might not be the right time. The Peninsula first has to rethink our land-use policies (which is already happening), so that more housing/office/amenities are accessible from a transit stop. That will take some time. Then we can have transit that does more than move people where the VTA wants them to go.

As for traffic, adding/removing a lane doesn't work the way we intuitively think it does. Adding a 3rd lane does not make traffic flow much better, it just adds more traffic. This has been well-studied across several decades. With that said, having one lane of smooth flowing traffic would be devastating-- the 22 bus should not share one of the two lanes used by cars-- instead they should adjust the 522's stations and merge the 522/22 to a single route.


BFF
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 9:41 am
BFF, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 9:41 am

The original and most common usage equates to Best Friends Forever. There, you just got more hip with the lingo of these crazy kids.
Voting NO though, of course, that's just common sense.


What vote?
Old Mountain View
on May 2, 2016 at 11:44 am
What vote?, Old Mountain View
on May 2, 2016 at 11:44 am

Didn't the city council already vote to support the center bus lane?

"ok ridership" above pointed out that he personally witnessed dozens of people's on the busses, so it makes sense that when the service gets almost twice as fast that ridership will skyrocket.

Where "ok ridership" has it wrong is his assertion that a bus lane will not make "traffic" run better. If by "traffic", he means the number of automobiles driving on El Camino, then he is correct. A study was done that showed only several minutes would be added to car trips on El Camino.

However, most would agree that the point of transportation systems are not to move machinery, but rather to move PEOPLE. That is the "traffic" that is most important. PEOPLE. A center bus lane would allow thousands and thousands of more people to move. The only other way to accomplish that massive uptick in people moving ability is to create more automobile lanes, which is impossible.

Time to get this done while we are in a period of economic prosperity. Hopefully, the disgruntled, bus hating snobs on Town Square will stop their personal attacks on all of us that support moving people where they need to go. The cries of "VTA shill!" are a desperate last-ditch attempt to discredit people instead of the argument. Since VTA has the facts (traffic study) on their side, the opposition is only left with immature personal attacks.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm

You are not fooling anyone VTA. The MV Council a year ago voted 3-2 to support BRT with conditions (never met). The only one of the three stooges who voted in the plurality still on board is Candidate Kasperzak - but he will say anything to get ahead.


Express to nowhere
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Express to nowhere, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

But VTA isn't moving PEOPLE WHERE THEY NEED TO MOVE.
VTA thinks everyone should slog up and down El Camino which is NOT where people need to go; they have no need to do that. El Camino is a short connector route to the REAL commute routes. The same commute routes that VTA fails to address, focusing only on ECR. No, there will not be thousands of people using the bus on ECR because VTA hasn't a clue as to where people actually NEED to move.


Huh?
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Huh?, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Ok smart guy. Where do YOU think people need to move?

(Crickets chirping...)


Boom go the facts
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Boom go the facts, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 12:53 pm

237, 280, 101, 85, Central Expressway.

Also, asking a question is not the same as addressing the issue.


Boom? Really?
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Boom? Really?, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:08 pm

"237, 280, 101, 85, Central Expressway."

All of those 100 percent taxpayer funded roads are being continually expanded with billions more of our dollars. It is not an either/or situation. Nobody is suggesting we close 101 and turn it into a veggie garden.

The highest density and most populated roadway in the Bay Area is El Camino. There is massive development scaling up now. There is simply no alternative to increase that roadways ability to move more PEOPLE along it than a dedicated transit line.

That is the reality of the situation and there is not a single cogent argument presented against it. That is why the debate devolves to all the name-calling against so-called "VTA shills".

Until this minority opposition can present a reasonable alternative to moving people quickly up and down 82, most of us will continue to support the center lane.



to: What Vote?
Blossom Valley
on May 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm
to: What Vote?, Blossom Valley
on May 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm

You have it wrong again, @"What Vote?". Our pointing out (clearly obvious) VTA Shills on this site is not a way to "discredit people instead of the argument". We are pointing you out to discredit you AND your false argument. You fool no one.
Your extravagant and uselessly oversized double busses should be replaced with 12 passenger vans that would easily hold the 4-6 average passengers now carried. Vans could run more often and much more cheaply. The laughably ridiculous center lane option is dead for all the sane reasons already stated, and not worth wasting more time to argue. VTA's next option - a dedicated lane for busses - would back up traffic on El Camino and cause massive negative impact, deadlocking all side streets from Foothill to Central Expressway and destroying formerly safe and quiet neighborhoods. Businesses along El Camino would suffer because street parking would be eliminated. Nothing good comes from the VTA options.
Because the VTA has proven to be a massive failure in all they attempt to accomplish, the public will officially put a stop to this latest money grab by VOTING NO to a THIRD TAX for the VTA. Face that fact, VTA, and live within your already bloated budget.


VTA coming for your paycheck
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:46 pm
VTA coming for your paycheck, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:46 pm

Where are the other voices supporting VTA? There is only one. VTA is doomed, and by their own hand.

It's time to start spreading the word in the other papers to really saturate the county and inform people who might not be paying attention. VTA:
1) Never fulfilled promises on any large projects
2) Enjoying TWO ongoing taxes on our households
3) Wants to ruin the roads in favor of empty buses, promising everyone will get on the bus once they make it too hard to drive(then go back to #1)

The above points are what they need to defend themselves against but I'm not sure how anyone can, factually anyways.


I would take a ferry boat if avail
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm
I would take a ferry boat if avail, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm

Maybe VTA thinks there is "No other way so we have to do what we know will fail", but an alternative to building roads is a South Bay ferry system. That could get people out of their commute over from the east bay, eliminating much of the traffic from 237 and the Dumbo, as well as 101 South from the Dumbo. We could hub it up around the Moffet area and shuttle workers into PA/MV/SV businesses.

Just because VTA is incapable of thinking of other ideas does not mean they do not exist. It also show how inept and boxed in the thinking of VTA is.

VTA = Bloated money sucking idea-less dinosaur that wants to tax you are bled dry


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on May 2, 2016 at 2:05 pm
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on May 2, 2016 at 2:05 pm

People. This is not just the VTA. This is a well funded, extremely well organized plan by multiple transportation authorities, City officials and development companies.

http://grandboulevard.net

They most certainly will continue to post on boards to "brainwash" everyone into the direction they feel we're not smart enough to go. They know better than the general public, they are able to see the future.

Good luck stopping them.


Laughable
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Laughable, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Mvresident2003 is completely correct. This is like the conspiracy of all of the worlds scientists warning us about global warming! It gets warmer and colder all the time so obviously these so-called experts are wrong.

Just like the people who are educated and experienced in transit. We don't need to be educated AT ALL to be able to discredit their traffic studies. Obviously a vast conspiracy of facts, figures and a desire to make things better. Ridiculous!

Well, Please vote against transit and vote for Donald Trump!


Battle by battle
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Battle by battle, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:42 pm

You kill this GBI with small daggers. The first one we'll have our say on is the vote on VTA's 3rd tax on us. There will be more battles, but that is on the forefront.


Yes! Ferry boats!
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:46 pm
Yes! Ferry boats!, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Whoever said "There is no other alternative" has just proven to all they are out of ideas. That doesn't mean the ideas are not there, just that VTA is incapable of accepting anything other than a bus on roads as a mode or transport.

The alternatives are in fact there people, anyone who tells you otherwise is just talking about their own lack of vision.


Darin
Registered user
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm
Darin, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
Registered user
on May 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm

@Jeff
Interestingly, I too was opposed to the BRT proposal before I read it. Then I read the proposal and now I'm fully opposed to it.

@Dump Trump!
It would be great to "bring great transit to our area". Unfortunately, we have the BRT proposal instead. And while we might not notice the extra sales tax, we would notice the damage the BRT proposal would do to transportation along El Camino Real (for both bus users and car users).


And no, I am not a "bus hater". I have used VTA buses as part of my commute (when there was a route that went where I needed to go). I know people who depend on VTA buses and other public transit. But the BRT proposal is a bad idea that needs to be stopped.


No weapons
Waverly Park
on May 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm
No weapons, Waverly Park
on May 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

How do you fight that battle when they promote it so heavily? How do you stop this bloated bureaucracy?


Let them know the facts
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 4:19 pm
Let them know the facts, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Spread the word wherever you can. Remind people that the tax increase will be a third active tax on us w/ nothing back in return.
There are a lot of people with their ears and eyes wide open on this so it won't be a stroll into our wallets for VTA like it used to be.

Of course the twist is that they will be using some of that very same money we have already given them to buy adds that will say they need more of our money.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 2, 2016 at 5:22 pm

@Laughable. Still not fooled. And in your next post under whatever fake name, tell everyone about the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI).


MV Resident
Old Mountain View
on May 3, 2016 at 12:44 am
MV Resident, Old Mountain View
on May 3, 2016 at 12:44 am

For any reader who has not yet checked out the link posted by "Vote NO,", here's the site for the "Grand Boulevard Initiative": Web Link GBI is the coalition of public officials and developers that is organizing a push to redevelop El Camino with high density, from San Jose to Daly City. Nothing wrong with redeveloping ECR - but IMO, the exact nature of their vision is very much open to question.

This link is to the GBI's page listing "Task Force Members." Our very own councilmember Chris Clark represents Mountain View. MV councilmember Ken Rosenberg is an alternate. Several major developers' reps are on the team as well.


VTA Shill
North Bayshore
on May 3, 2016 at 8:43 am
VTA Shill , North Bayshore
on May 3, 2016 at 8:43 am

Remember, the new sales tax also funds Caltrain grade separations and various road improvements.


And yet
Waverly Park
on May 3, 2016 at 8:50 am
And yet, Waverly Park
on May 3, 2016 at 8:50 am

Somehow that funding never makes it to actual jobs. Perhaps there are too many shills?


Cal Train is a winner
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2016 at 9:19 am
Cal Train is a winner, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2016 at 9:19 am

Separate out the Cal Train improvements next year with their own tax and it will pass. Hitching your wagon to VTA is a loser proposition and I'm totally unwilling to have VTA enjoy one additional dime from my paycheck.
If Cal train wants $, they should ditch any ties to VTA's money grabs.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2016 at 9:59 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2016 at 9:59 am

Who are the co-chairs of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force?


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 3, 2016 at 10:21 am
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on May 3, 2016 at 10:21 am

It is unfortunate that all so-called "improvements" are not separated out. Unfortunately, all the agencies seem to be directly linked to one another. VTA funds go to Caltrain and BART, Caltrain improvements are requested to smooth the path for High Speed Rail on the peninsula, etc.

If all of these agencies were completely independent of one another, residents could then decide what modes of transportation best serve their needs. But because each of the agencies and bodies responsible for maintaining them have such bloated budgets and are all interconnected, they all feed at the trough of public funding and in the end we all lose because we get the fattest possible system instead of the fittest.

I propose a road diet for VTA funding and BRT lanes.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View.


MV Resident
Old Mountain View
on May 3, 2016 at 11:06 am
MV Resident, Old Mountain View
on May 3, 2016 at 11:06 am

The Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force co-chairs are Russell Hancock, CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley (Web Link and Jim Hartnett, CEO and GM of SamTrans (Web Link They are prominent movers and shakers, and a couple of very smart guys, very well-connected, no doubt with good intentions, and a view from the stratosphere. I have no problem with the idea of redeveloping ECR, but I do not think installing high-density development all up and down ECR is wise. Developers love the idea, of course.

GBI tries to present a united vision that cities can get behind, then leaves it to the individual jurisdictions as to exactly how they will implement their part of it. Here's where the developers come in, with their friends on the city council, like Task Force members Clark and Rosenberg. Not surprisingly, MV's developer-friendly council and planning department have approved an ECR Precise Plan that would allow 7-story mixed-use buildings on ECR, at a density that is a prescription for gridlock. BRT is supposed to make this OK. But there's the flaw: it would not attract riders in sufficient numbers.

Removing 2 lanes on ECR has a huge element of compulsion to it - make auto use miserable enough, and people will be forced into bus use. This "social engineering" attempt has aroused plenty of resentment. And even with negative pressure on auto users, BRT could never achieve its goals, because the proposed service up and down ECR would not provide a realistic alternative for the way drivers presently use ECR.

The city council and GBI need to think again about whether more high density on ECR is wise. It would only benefit the developers who want to get in on the high rents they can charge, and leave a mess for everyone who actually lives here.




Hmmmmmm
Blossom Valley
on May 3, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Hmmmmmm, Blossom Valley
on May 3, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Interesting thing happened. I received an email from a Los Altos City Council member asking me to support Mike Kasperzak for Assembly. I wrote back saying that Mike has a lot of positives, but I would actively work against him because of his support for VTA's ridiculous lane grab. The return email stated that Mike said he voted to support it on the MV Council "just to keep the study alive". I found that to be a pretty remarkable comment - as the vote was to FAVOR this... not to simply "keep it alive". And besides, the LAST THING I want is to keep this fiasco alive. Now Mike is back-pedaling it seems, since clearly the wind of public thought is NOT in his direction. I might meet with him in person, to see how sincere he is - and if a change of mind can be trusted. Right now I doubt it.
Decent bus service would be a positive for the few who use it in this area - but VTA has no idea what is needed or workable. El Camino is not a commute route, and will never have the ridership they think they can push on the public. They need to branch out to where people really want to go - but evidently the stagnant thinkers of VTA find creative thought too difficult. Sorry, VTA, the public is too smart to spend good money on garbage. Maybe you should just spend your TWO CURRENT TAXES a bit better. You'll never get a third.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2016 at 7:36 pm
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2016 at 7:36 pm

Mike Kasperzak needs to land a job he can handle. Dog catcher comes to mind. But dogs are good judges of character and would surely bite Mike every chance they got.


Vote NO
Cuernavaca
on May 5, 2016 at 8:51 am
Vote NO, Cuernavaca
on May 5, 2016 at 8:51 am

This morning (May 5) much of VTA light-rail has been blocked by one man standing on top of a light-rail bus in San Jose. TV reports he has stood there for 8 hours. County sheriffs just watch. They must be getting overtime! Mass transit instantly becomes MASS DELAY. Great plan.


Logic Please?
another community
on Jul 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Logic Please?, another community
on Jul 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm

I would like to point out that the buses on the 22 and 522 run the same route with a combined frequency of more than 10 minutes each direction. Even if you do see 6 riders, keep in mind that you should multiply this by the number of buses each hour, and compare that to lines like the 81, 40, and 52 on which it is common to see not one single rider onboard (These buses operate once every hour or half hour).

Also, I agree with those of you who recognize the BART extension as a boondoggle, I admit I am not a fan of the way BART was built, it costs absurd amounts of taxpayer money and does not encourage using transit the way light rail and Caltrain, ACE, and Capitol Corridor do. However, the El Camino Corridor is comparably a much smaller expense, in fact, with the money we are using for BART we could have replaced the entire corridor with light rail (From Palo Alto to Eastridge) as well as completed the Vasona light rail extension and added light rail on Stevens Creek. I recognize that it is now nearly impossible or difficult to reverse the community's love for empty BART trains, but nevertheless it is worth pointing out.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.