Councilmember David Cohen's assertions about the proposed Regional Transit Measure have been contested by Thunder Parley, a former California Governor candidate. Parley's analysis disputes several key claims made by Cohen regarding service improvements, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) financial standing, the measure's potential impact on traffic, its role in road repairs, and its affordability for San Jose residents.
Cohen stated in a pro-transit opinion piece that the measure would significantly enhance VTA service, leading to faster, more frequent, and efficient operations aimed at increasing ridership and reducing vehicle use. However, Parley asserts that the measure establishes no minimum requirements for increasing VTA service hours, frequency, or routes. Parley referred to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report, which documented VTA's fiscal oversight issues and mismanagement, and questioned whether new tax funds would be directed instead to extensive infrastructure projects. The BART Phase II extension, a project estimated at $13 billion to tunnel 100 feet underground into downtown San Jose through an active fault zone, was highlighted as a major project. Parley noted that a Rapid bus currently covers the same trip from Berryessa to downtown in 11 minutes without additional taxpayer funds.
Regarding VTA's financial health, Cohen argued the agency needed more revenue to restore service levels cut years ago, pointing out that VTA operates less service today than it did in 2001. Parley countered that Cohen overlooked VTA's current financial situation, which includes operating surpluses and substantial reserves. Parley questioned why, if VTA is solvent, prior service levels have not been restored. Additionally, Parley stated that Bay Area public transit ridership has been consistently declining since 2015, preceding the pandemic, suggesting that demanding billions to restore underutilized routes amounts to financial malpractice.
Cohen also claimed that the survival of regional transit systems is critical for San Jose, asserting that a compromised BART would undermine Caltrain and VTA, leading to worsened traffic. He cited SPUR's "Bumper to Bumper" study as indicating severe traffic congestion without effective public transit. Parley, however, characterized this claim as misleading. Parley stated that SPUR's worst-case scenario, involving 15 BART station closures, would add fewer than 9,000 cars to the road. Across a region experiencing 12 million daily car trips, this represents an almost negligible 0.07% increase, described as a statistical rounding error. Parley also noted that SPUR authored this tax measure while simultaneously advocating for 400,000 new housing units, which are projected to add at least 800,000 daily car trips—an impact roughly 8,800% higher than the traffic increase attributed to transit cuts. Parley also indicated that SPUR regularly supports the special interests advocating for this extensive transit tax.
Concerning road repairs, Cohen claimed the measure would reduce traffic and allow funding for pothole repair and paving, stating this was specifically included to meet local needs. Parley disputed this, stating that State Bill 63 (SB 63), which establishes the measure, does not guarantee funding for neighborhood pothole repairs. Parley further suggested that "pavement projects are political code for road diets" and questioned why Californians, who already contribute through the nation's highest gas taxes for roads, should be taxed twice for work not guaranteed to happen.
Finally, Cohen called the regional transit measure "a good deal for San Jose" and important for the Bay Area's future. Parley disagreed, calling the proposed $17 billion tax hike unjustifiable, especially when 20% of Bay Area residents rely on food banks. Parley argued this regressive tax measure would raise costs on essential goods such as meals, clothing, and school supplies to protect the profits of transit contractors and expanding bureaucracies.
