It's been said for decades that we can have BART or everything else we need in transportation for our valley. Apparently that wisdom still applies. Why? Because BART's incredibly expensive to build. Unfortunately, it will serve very few Santa Clara County neighborhoods.

When voters passed Measure A in 2000, everything was rosy: our economy, incomes, housing values, the stock market, and governments' view that sales tax revenue would rise forever. Proponents ignored BART operating costs because they assumed that we'd approve more taxes. They also underestimated the costs to build and operate the rest of Measure A's extensive promises: light rail extensions, Caltrain electrification, bus service improvements, etc.

Now, VTA says another 1/8¢ is needed to operate BART-to-San Jose. This isn't about BART, it's about VTA.

VTA's Measure B tax proposal is no more than an attempt to further subsidize inefficiencies at an unpopular agency. Claiming it's for BART simply polls better than more money for VTA. Voters already passed a BART tax. Will another 1/8¢ really be enough? Definitely not.

What VTA's not telling voters is that, to avoid cutting existing local service and to build Measure A projects, their adopted transit plan already includes yet another sales tax increase.

So, irrespective of Measure B's fate, critical decisions will have to be made. That should happen before voting on another VTA tax proposal, and in the context of a realistic, comprehensive funding plan for con-struction and operations. If VTA goes forward with BART, we'll have to accept at least one more sales tax increase. Transit projects that serve county-wide needs may be delayed until the 2030s or be sacrificed to connect with the BART system. Voters should know first what VTA's plan will entail and how much it will really cost us.

Instead, VTA's holding-off to see what happens on Nov. 4. If their 1/8¢ passes, this issue will go underground until the next tax is needed. If not, they'll at last have to deal with reality - publicly.

VTA already collects two sales taxes locally and part of another from the state. Most recent (2006) audited accounts show that VTA received roughly $236 million in sales taxes, about 51 percent of their transit operating revenue - and rising. Only 9% came from fares.

Historically, sales taxes have made VTA inefficiencies possible. VTA's cost-effectiveness compares poorly with other Bay Area and U.S. transit agencies. Their bus cost per revenue hour, per passenger, and per mile are at or near the WORST. Considering millions of annual hours, miles, and passengers, even modest cost differences yield large potential savings.

How much could be saved? Plenty. Again using 2006 numbers, matching San Mateo County's bus cost per revenue hour, VTA would have saved $30+ million. Matching MUNI's light rail same cost, VTA would have saved another $21 million.

The biggest factors in these cost differences are VTA's overly generous salaries, benefits, and work rules. Absenteeism is awful, requiring more employees and expensive overtime.

VTA says their proposed 1/8¢ sales tax would raise $42 million annually. That's less than 12% of this year's $362-million operating budget. Knowing what you do now, it's easy to see that improvements in VTA's efficiency could save that much or more.

Although some improvements have been made, VTA's Board needs to be far more aggressive without cutting quality or services. Contract negotiations are currently underway. VTA's board must stand firm to halt spiraling costs or we'll continue to be told that efforts to achieve cost-effectiveness run afoul of labor agreements - endlessly rebuilding their case for more sales taxes.

Giving VTA another 1/8¢ now will further remove any incentive to improve efficiency, set the stage for additional taxes, and postpone realistic public decision-making. A culture change is needed at VTA. Step #1 is to Say NO to Measure B.