You are here: vtaridersunion.org > VTA Meeting Notes > November 9 Workshop

VTA Workshop
November 9, 2001, 8:30am
San Jose Hyatt, San Jose

The following were various notes taken from the November 9 VTA Workshop in San Jose. The VTA Board is expected to approve BART as the Preferred Investment Strategy (PIS) for the Fremont/San Jose corridor. The VTA Board is also expected to approve a formal agreement with BART on how various costs will be paid for in the San Jose BART extension. However, as part of the agreement, the VTA must find $48 million/year in stable funding to pay for the operating costs of the BART extension to San Jose, or BART will place a lien on 30% of the money used to fund operations for VTA's bus and light rail service. Naturally, the Santa Clara VTA Riders Union is there on this issue.

KCBS radio news and KPIX are also at the meeting. They have set up microphones near the microphones used for public comment.

Meeting begins at 8:31am. Jim Beall and Blanca Alvarado, two members of the VTA Board and both county supervisors, were not in attendance for this meeting. (Editor's Note: Alvarado and Beall were two of the vocal County Supervisors who were against 2000 Measure A and BART, from the very beginning. They stated that Measure A and BART needed more evaluation in terms of costs to the county.) We start with item 3: approve BART as the Preferred Investment Strategy (PIS) for the Fremont/San Jose corridor.

• VTA Board Chair Manuel Valerio makes remarks about how the current item to be discussed is to approve BART as the Preferred Investment Strategy (PIS) for the Fremont/San Jose corridor.
• VTA Board member (and County Supervisor) Pete McHugh states how the PIS reflects "honors the will of the voters" and wholeheartedly supports the motion.
• VTA Board member (and San Jose City councilman) Forrest Williams agrees that the VTA must take the position of accepting BART, but also wants to ensure that people's concerns about the BART extension are considered.
• VTA Board member (and Morgan Hill mayor) Dennis Kennedy says that a "window of opportunity" is there, and that BART is the best solution. He will support the item.

Public comment is taken from numerous citizens who are mostly opposed to the item. The item passes unanimously.

On to the next and last item: approval for the VTA/BART agreement.

VTA General Manager Peter Cipolla summarizes the VTA/BART negotiations. Basically, VTA will own the extension including all equipment to be used in the extension. The extension will also feature transit-oriented development at all BART stations along the extension, to be worked out with the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara where the BART extension will serve. Cipolla also mentions how the VTA may need to pay its share for replacement of the fare gates BART uses (most of which date back to 1972). Cipolla also mentions how the VTA must find a dedicated source of funding for BART's operations costs along the extension, or by default, 30% of funding used to pay for VTA's operations of bus and light rail service will be used to fund the costs. Cipolla thinks this is ultimately good business for BART and VTA, and mentions that with or without the agreement, the VTA must find money to expand the bus and light rail system in Santa Clara County.

Questions come up for Cipolla:

• Dennis Kennedy asks Cipolla about potential development along the BART extension. Cipolla mentions that anything could be built, and brings up an office building near a LRT station in Denver. (Editor's Note: Pete Cipolla was the GM of Denver's RTD system before he came here.)
• VTA Board member Pat Dando (on the San Jose City Council) inquires about disputes along the line. Cipolla answers that all disputes stop at the GM level, with him. Dando asks Cipolla if BART has any standards. Cipolla mentions that BART has "high standards." (Editor's Note: critics of BART can insert their own joke here.)
• James Pierson, head of Planning and Development for VTA, asks if VTA is the lead agency for the project. Cipolla says yes it is, in all aspects from the environmental impact report (EIR) it must submit, to the operating agency.
• Pat Dando expresses concern about what to do if we needed to dip into the funding used to help pay for bus and light rail operations. Cipolla says that the funding is part of the general revenue. Dando also emphasizes how federal funding will place emphasis on regional agreements, especially involving rail projects.
• VTA Board member Don Gage (also a County Supervisor) expresses concern about funding. He wants full disclosure of all funding for the BART extension with the public. He emphasized the importance of informing and involving the public in the entire process.
• VTA Board member David Cortese (also on the San Jose City Council) questions why the names of the individuals who gave public comment during the major investment strategy (MIS) process for the Fremont-San Jose corridor had their names crossed out. James Pierson answers that this was done for privacy purposes, and to avoid retribution for those who made comments. Cortese recommends that names be disclosed in all future public comment.
• VTA Board member Jane Kennedy (no relation to Dennis Kennedy; she is also the mayor of Campbell) notes that the BART extension to San Jose will promote transit-oriented development, while Dennis Kennedy reinforces the need for expanded Caltrain service in the South County.

Public comment is taken. Two microphones have been set up on both sides of the room. One other microphone from KCBS radio and another microphone with a camera. Our founder, Eugene Bradley, speaks first. He challenges the VTA Board to find where in the Measure A ballot it is mentioned that bus and light rail service must be cut to find any extra money incurred by the BART extension. He also urges the VTA Board to do "whatever it takes" within reason, to ensure that VTA's bus and light rail service does not get cut to fund the BART extension. Kim Strickland also comments on how cuts in bus and light rail service to fund BART would not only have an impact on citizens who depend on transit to get around. Kim also details how bus and light rail service cuts to fund BART would have civil rights implications, similar to what happened in Los Angeles when the MTA there cut bus service to fund the "Red Line" subway. Several other people also spoke out asking that VTA not cut bus and light rail service to fund BART's operating costs.

After all public comment has been taken, VTA Board Vice Chair (and San Jose Mayor) Ron Gonzales says he's "overjoyed" about finally getting BART to San Jose. He also emphasizes how "we are not trading bus and light rail for BART." He also tells us that when he takes the VTA Board Chair gavel in January, he will have ideas on how the VTA can find the $48 million in operating revenue for the BART extension by January 2009. At that date he will also have ideas on how to increase the farebox recovery rate - the ratio of passenger fares collected to operating costs - to be close to that of BART. Statistics he mentions: BART has 64% farebox recovery ration, while VTA buses and light rail combined have a farebox recovery ratio of 14%.

Afterwards, Gonzales starts the motion to pass the item, which passes unanimously. Some applause from the audience follows. AFter VTA Board Chair Manuel Valerio adjourns this historic meeting, the KPIX camera and KCBS microphone gets set up on one side of the room, ready to interview various VTA Board members.

Final Analysis

The vote to approve BART as the Preferred Investment Strategy (PIS) for the Fremont-San Jose corridor, and the vote to approve the agreement between the VTA and BART regarding BART expansion to San Jose, came as no surprise to us. Many of our group had observed this entire process from the beginning last summer. The "backroom" deals and closed-door politics that created Measure A last June; the measure's ultimate approval by voters last fall, and much-flawed "public process" for what were supposed to be neutral meetings to determine what would serve the Fremont-San Jose corridor were classic examples of politics over substance in Bay Area mass transit issues.

Two points arise from this meeting:

• How will Ron Gonzales propose to get the revenue for BART's necessary operating costs for the San Jose extension, and for expanding bus and light rail service in Santa Clara County? Aggressive collection of light rail fares (which are currently on the honor system)? Charges for parking at VTA park-and-ride lots and future BART parking lots? Advertising revenue? An additional 1/4 cent tax (similar to what the rest of the counties that have BART pay)? Or higher fares? Construction will not start for four years, and already there are cost overruns on the BART extension. Not good...
• It will be more important than ever to ensure that riders are contacting their VTA Board representatives to ensure that bus and light rail service will be expanded, without the need to raise fares. This is especially true in lieu of BART's history of cost overruns and their consequences. Ask anyone in San Mateo County about the poor quality of bus service in San Mateo County, especially after SamTrans cut bus service in 1999 to pay for loans to cover cost overruns on the BART extension to San Francisco airport.

Next VTA meeting will be on December 6 at 9:30am...

back to vtaridersunion.org main page