back to vtaridersunion.org
main page
| Santa Clara VTA | Riders Union |
The following is an internal email from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority written by General Manager Michael Burns. It is in response to Scott Herhold's Mercury News column on July 20 regarding VTA's agreement with BART to use state "TDA" funds as collateral for operating expenses on the proposed San Jose BART extension.
Please note that the internal email is unedited, and includes the unedited text of his letter this morning in the same Mercury News in response to Herhold's column. It is being provided for informational purposes only.
From: VTA.Connections [mailto:VTA.Connections@vta.org]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:58 PM
To: VTA.Friends
Subject: Response to Scott Herhold's July 20 BART Article in the San
Jose Mercury News
VTA CONNECTIONS
July 21, 2008
Response to Scott Herhold's July 20 article
Dear Friend of VTA,
Many of you saw Scott Herhold's article that ran in the Mercury this
weekend, and you may be wondering, what is behind the harsh
criticisms of VTA that Herhold cites. I can't imagine what has
generated this very personal animosity, but, what I can say is that
VTA has been very open with its Board, and with the public, about
it's commitment to ensure that bringing BART to San Jose will not be
at the expense of our existing transit operations.
Although VTA entered into an agreement with BART several years ago,
designating TDA funds as a guarantee (which was required by BART) to
cover future operating expenses of the San Jose extension, VTA was
clear at the time that this agreement was entered into that a revenue
source would need to be identified in the intervening years to cover
this expense, for a number of reasons. First, VTA never intended
to "Rob Peter to pay Paul." We were not going to decimate our
existing bus and light rail systems to support this new service, and
that is exactly what would happen if we used TDA to pay for BART
operating costs. In June, bus ridership was up 10% over last year,
and continues to increase every month, in large part due to rising
gas prices, but, also due to the changes that we have made in our bus
service earlier this year. We have a similar study for improving our
light rail operations that will begin this year, and we fully
anticipate that changes to that system will likewise increase
ridership, on top of the increases that we are already experiencing.
It is unacceptable to suggest that VTA has $42 million in reserve (on
an annual basis) that we could divert from our bus and light rail
systems at a time when demands, as well as costs, are rapidly on the
rise.
Second, VTA would not use TDA to pay for BART operation costs, as to
do so would jeopardize federal New Starts funding, given the negative
impact that it would have on the existing transit system. Federal
legislation, SAFETEA-LU, specifically states that FTA only approves
New Starts projects if based on their evaluations the project
is "supported by an acceptable degree of local financial commitment
to construct, maintain, and operate the system…and maintain and
operate the entire public transportation system without requiring a
reduction in existing public transportation services or level of
service to operate the proposed project." VTA has had numerous
conversations with Federal DOT confirming that federal funding for
this project would be negatively impacted by any reduction of the
existing transit service that might result from the BART project.
In recent years, VTA has been openly criticized by the "influential
chorus" mentioned in Herhold's article. These gentlemen maintain
that if VTA operations were more efficient, there would be no need to
seek additional tax revenue to support future operations costs. They
continue to criticize VTA despite the fact that we have met with
these individuals and have discussed the many ways that VTA has
improved operations over the past year. In response to the
Organizational Financial Assessment, which VTA commissioned last
year, many steps have been taken to improve our financial management
and operations, and significant progress has been demonstrated on
both these areas. Nevertheless, costs of fuel continue to escalate
at a rate that was never anticipated by VTA, or any other transit
agency. Revenues from our existing sales tax base have remained
flat, and the State has continued a yearly raid on transportation
funding to transit agencies. VTA is taking significant steps to
manage costs, and to maximize our investments, and we believe that
these continued criticisms are unwarranted.
The following is my response to the Mercury article.
"Does Scott Herhold really believe that VTA has a reserve of $48
million per year to pay for BART operating costs? If
the "influential" advocates cited in Herhold's column are truly
interested in an honest dialogue, perhaps they should consult someone
with knowledge in transportation funding. Using the funds identified
in the article to pay for BART operations would decimate bus and
light rail ridership (3,832,862 boardings June 2008) and preclude VTA
from receiving federal funding. Is this what Herhold and his
advocates want?
In these times of ever increasing fuel costs, raised awareness of
climate change and continued dependence on foreign oil, the valley
needs transportation alternatives. I appreciate and respect that some
are opposed to the BART project, however, perpetuating misleading
statements is disingenuous."
Michael T. Burns
General Manager
408.321.5559
back to vtaridersunion.org
main page