Published Sunday, May 8, 2005, in the San Jose Mercury News

Should we stay aboard?

In 2000, Santa Clara County voters overwhelmingly approved a 30-year,
half-cent sales tax to fund transit improvements. The crown jewel of
the projects to be funded by Measure A was an extension of BART from
Fremont through downtown San Jose and on into Santa Clara. The tax
was to kick in when a previous tax expires in spring 2006 and was
expected to raise $6 billion.

That was at the height of the dot-com boom, when the economy was
soaring and freeways were in gridlock. Now, it seems, the dot-com
bust could put a kink in the plans. Under current projections, the
tax is expected to bring in $2 billion less, while federal and state
transit dollars also are dwindling.

BART backers believe it's possible to use federal and local funds to
build and operate the line, though they are discussing whether an
additional sales tax might be needed. Opponents say public funds
would be better spent on upgrading commuter rail lines.

Last week, the Mercury News asked BART proponent Carl Guardino, right,
and BART opponent Greg Perry to debate the BART question by e-mail.
Guardino is president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (formerly
the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group), which has long backed BART.
Perry is a Mountain View city councilman. The exchange, reprinted
here, was minimally edited. Editor's clarifications are in brackets.



On May 3 at 2:33 p.m., Guardino wrote:

Dear Greg,

Vision, and trust.

In 1930, 75 percent of voters approved construction of the Golden Gate
Bridge.

Gripped by the Great Depression, it would have been easy to give up.

Instead, elected officials honored the will of the voters, and forged
ahead.

Seven years later, the bridge was complete. It now carries 60,000
vehicles each weekday, and serves as a monument to voters' vision, and
public trust.

Today, we face a similar choice.

In November 2000, voters approved BART to Santa Clara County, with
stations in Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara. Knowing full well the
costs, it was -- and is -- taxpayers' top priority.

Unlike 1930, the down economy has turned into a rationale for a few
longtime BART opponents to try to derail BART, and shift taxpayer
dollars to other purposes -- some not even included in Measure A.

Let's learn from history, and build a better future.

Sincerely,
Carl Guardino



On May 3 at 2:45 p.m. Perry wrote:

To me, this isn't a question of vision.

It is a question of what type of transit system is best for Santa
Clara County.

We could build BART. Or we could make the best of the train tracks we
already have.

Specifically, we could run ACE and Caltrain on a BART schedule, and
build a transfer station where the ACE and BART tracks cross in
Fremont. [ACE is the Altamont Commuter Express, which runs from
Stockton to downtown San Jose. Caltrain runs from San Francisco to
Gilroy.]

If we run ACE and Caltrain on a high-frequency schedule, we offer
great service to the entire county. We also would have high-frequency
direct service to San Francisco, San Mateo County, Fremont and
Livermore Valley. Oakland would require one transfer. BART to San
Jose can't offer that. [BART-S.J. is shorthand for the proposed line,
though the envisioned termination would be near Santa Clara University
in Santa Clara.]

The big advantage is that it gives us BART-service frequencies without
the BART cost. BART to San Jose costs $4.9 billion, including bonding
costs [$4.2 billion for BART, $700 million for the interest cost of
bonds]. Expanding ACE and Caltrain can be done for less than $3
billion.



On May 3 at 3:56 p.m. Guardino wrote:

Respectfully, Greg's "alternative" isn't plausible. ACE tracks, for
instance, are owned by Union Pacific, which barely allow the current
three trips per day -- let alone BART-level service every six minutes.

This is about what transit system is best for taxpayers. That is why
voters reached into their own wallets to build BART. BART is a
regional system, supporting a regional economy, currently carrying
310,000 daily trips.

The extension adds [a projected] 84,000 daily trips by 2025, more than
today's Caltrain, light-rail, express bus and ACE ridership --
combined!

BART serves the I-880 corridor, the region's second-most-congested
morning commute -- in 2000, 91,000 daily commuters crawled through
stop-and-go traffic from the East Bay to Santa Clara County.
Moreover, 40,000 county commuters travel to East Bay jobs -- 58,000 by
2025.

This is also about representative democracy -- do local elected
officials uphold the will of taxpayers, or shift their tax dollars for
other purposes?

Sincerely,
Carl Guardino



On May 3 at 4:17 p.m., Perry wrote:

That just isn't true. We both know that it is possible to run ACE at
high frequency.

The official BART MIS (Major Investment Study) included a commuter
rail alternative that used those very tracks in two directions every
10 minutes. (It wasn't a very well-designed alternative, but that is
a different question.)

It is true that we need to upgrade the tracks if we want to run ACE at
BART frequencies. That said, we have more than enough money to
upgrade the tracks.

The key here is which plan helps the most people. BART-S.J. parallels
880, but does next to nothing to reduce traffic coming in from 101,
280, 680 or across the Dumbarton Bridge.

Expanding ACE and Caltrain service helps with all of these.

Ridership estimates don't cover this. I know the VTA [Valley
Transportation Authority], controlled by San Jose, releases ridership
estimates that look wonderful. But that doesn't mean those people
will actually be there when the train opens.



On May 3 at 4:43 p.m., Guardino wrote:

First, I must respectfully correct Greg's inaccurate statement about
ACE service instead of BART. Let me make it clear -- Union Pacific
owns the tracks. They allow only three trains each way currently, and
they do not have a history of selling tracks upon which they continue
to move freight.

[BATN: THEN WHERE DID THE CALTRAIN LINE COME FROM?????????]

Let me point out more of the reasons why county taxpayers want BART.
In a recent University of California-Berkeley study commissioned by
Caltrans, it was found that 40 percent of people living near a BART
station take BART. In contrast, 17 percent of residents living near
Caltrain use the system.

Whatever we build, we have to operate. BART's "fare box return" --
the operating funds recovered by ticket sales -- is 62 percent. In
comparison, Caltrain's is 35 percent. VTA bus and light rail is 12
percent.

Again, however, Greg is missing the bigger point.

In down economic times, the VTA -- like families and businesses --
needs to prioritize. If cuts need to be made in the list of Measure A
transit improvements, VTA board members should cut taxpayers' lowest
priorities, or take a sharp pencil to every improvement. Greg wants
to cut taxpayers' top priority and the transit system with the highest
[projected] ridership.

Sincerely,
Carl Guardino



On May 3 at 4:56 p.m., Perry wrote:

The trouble is we've heard it all before.

The last time the former Manufacturing Group asked us to pay for a new
sales tax [the 2000 vote extended an earlier tax], they assured us
there would be no problems. The official campaign Web site said "the
most conservative estimates of future sales-tax revenues were used to
ensure every project is delivered during the life of the measure."

It turned out that this wasn't true. The sales tax projections were
$2 billion too optimistic.

They promised us more than BART. They promised us we would get better
Caltrain, light rail, ACE, Highway 17 bus and Dumbarton rail service,
and more buses. They promised us we would get everything, all for
just a half-cent sales tax.

Now we find out that we don't even get BART unless we pass [another]
tax. [It is not yet certain whether voters will be asked to approve
another tax.]

I'm sure the new tax will have great promises, too. And I'm also sure
that those promises will be nothing more than promises.

One topic we haven't even begun is whether we even can build BART.
According to spreadsheets from former VTA CFO Scott Buhrer, if we drop
every other project but BART, and borrow as much as creditors will
lend us, we will run out of bonding capacity in 2009. That is true
even if the state and federal government give us every penny we asked
for, on the day we want it. And that isn't likely. [A new sales tax
would increase the VTA's bonding capacity.]

Building BART-S.J. has a huge risk that we don't get anything more
than a big hole in the ground.



On May 3 at 6:36 p.m., Guardino wrote:

When David Packard formed the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG),
he stated, "Our job, as CEOs, is not to sit on the sidelines to either
cheer or jeer. Our job is to get into the game and move the ball
forward."

Recently, Greg stood with members of the local Sierra Club to proudly
state they had opposed BART [extensions] from the beginning. Where
would we be if we listened to [the] naysayers in 1984, 1996 and 2000?
[Perry took no position in 1984 or 1996.]

In 1984, SVLG and now-Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren led a broad-based
coalition to pass Measure A, which built Highway 85, and improved
highways 101 and 237.

In 1996, SVLG and a coalition of labor, environmental and community
members led the Measure A and B Campaign, which widened Highway 101
from San Jose to Morgan Hill, provided $90 million for pothole repair,
widened Interstate 880 near Brokaw Road, improved Caltrain and
provided for 15 other key road and rail projects.

Envision our valley today without those improvements.

Both measures were accomplished in spite of economic downturns and
unforeseen circumstances. No one could predict our most recent
downturn, the worst in our valley's history. Yet we aren't judged by
the difficulties we face -- but by our response. Our response is to
build taxpayers' highest priority -- BART -- and as many other Measure
A improvements as possible.

If Greg and his anti-BART allies truly believe in their
"alternative," I hope they will do the hard work of building a
coalition, placing an initiative on the ballot, and securing a
two-thirds vote.

Sincerely,
Carl Guardino



On May 4 at 7:24 a.m., Perry wrote:

We aren't talking about David Packard, repairing potholes or Highway
85. We're talking about BART-S.J., and the alternatives to BART-S.J.

I should clarify that alternatives are real. Union Pacific owns the
right of way, and will want some slots for freight.

That does not mean that it is impossible to expand ACE. It just means
we have to improve the track.

(BART-S.J.'s own supporting documents consider expanding ACE service
as a viable alternative. Look for alternative No. 3 on
<http://www.svrtc-vta.org/vta/alternatives.asp>.)

We have a huge problem here. Despite what we were promised, there
isn't enough money to build and operate BART to San Jose. And if
state or federal funds fall through, the shortfall will be even
larger. There are also solutions, if we care to look for them.

Before the BART-S.J. hoopla, the plan was to connect to BART with
standard rail. We passed the tax in 1996, and it was to have opened
last year. We could be riding those trains today, if we hadn't gotten
off course.

Standard trains make more sense, if you run them frequently.

They are cheaper: standard rail to Fremont would cost $1.5 billion,
BART-S.J. would cost $4.2 billion, plus bonding.

Standard trains also serve more people. Expanding Caltrain and ACE
would put us at the center of a six-county regional rail network.
Commuters from everywhere from San Francisco to Stockton would have a
direct high-frequency train to San Jose.

Without another tax.

Which is better, really?