You are here: Main Page > VTA Meetings > May 5, 2005 VTA Board meeting

Highlights from the May 5, 2005 VTA Board of Directors Meeting
County Supervisors' Chambers, San Jose, CA

This evening's Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors meeting had two (2) items of interest for the Board to vote on:

Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a light rail extension along Capitol Expressway from Alum Rock past Eastridge Mall to Nieman Blvd. in the Evergreen section of San Jose

Whether to support or oppose a Senate bill in the State Legislature for a $5 county-only vehicle surcharge for automobiles registered in Santa Clara County

Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) CEO Carl Guardino is at the meeting, hobnobbing with various VTA staff members.  Laura Stuchinsky, Director of Transportation and Land Use for the SVLG, is also in the audience.

The meeting begins at 5:30pm with closed session, where legal matters involving VTA are discussed (by state law) in the County Supervisors' private conference room.  This lasts for about 30 minutes, with "nothing to report" from the Board Secretary after the Board members end closed session.

After the VTA Employees of the Month for May 2005 are honored.

Afterward, agenda item 7 is up for Board discussion.  The VTA Board is to vote on approving the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [2.3 MB Adobe Acrobat PDF] for a component of the Downtown-East Valley corridor project.  In this instance, a light rail extension from the current Alum Rock light rail station down Capitol Expressway, past Eastridge Mall, to Nieman Bldv. in the Evergreen section of San Jose.

Major comments on the item from VTA Board Members and Staff follow:

• Nora Campos: "No funding secured for the corridor yet."
• VTA Staff Member Tom Fitzwater mentions that the extension will not succeed without bicycle or pedestrian improvements along Capitol Expressway.
• David Cortese is concerned about some of the properties along Capitol Expressway that will need to be acquired for the light rail expansion project and inquired about whether or not eminent domain will be needed.  Fitzwater's answer: it depends on the property and its owner.

SCVTARU members Zakhari Cribari and Eugene Bradley express issues and concerns on the agenda during the public comment period.  Our comments, based on the final EIR, were:

• The non-HOV lane should be eliminated to build the right-of-way for light rail extension instead of the currently-existing HOV lane.
• Intersections like Capitol & Senter - already at gridlock - will be even worse with the introduction of light rail. One potential solution involves constructing a tunnel at Capitol and Story at an extra $65 million of our tax dollars.  Potentially this could be the nation's first light rail extension that actually increases the very gridlock it was supposed to relieve.
• Over $365 million of our tax dollars will be spent on a light rail extension (Alum Rock - Eastridge for the minimum operating segment) that is only supposed to attract about 3,200 new transit riders/day.  While this project was part of the 2000 Measure A ballot measure, and that Capitol Expressway was originally built in the early 1990's to accomodate light rail, it was calculated that over $114,000/new rider will be spent with our tax dollars on the extension. This is easily enough to buy and maintain an M-Class Mercedes-Benz SUV for at least three years from nearby Beschoff Motor Cars on Capitol Expwy. and Tully across from Eastridge. 
• SCVTARU has to question whether or not this is the best use of our tax dollars in VTA's ongoing fiscal crisis.  With that in mind, bus rapid transit similar to what will run between Palo Alto and Eastridge Mall in East San Jose should have been implemented instead of the extension, for only a fraction of the $365 million cost.

After public comment was taken, the VTA Board passed the adoption unanimously.

Agenda item 8 was Public Presentations.  Before this, it was announced that VTA Board Vice Chair Cindy Chavez had again deferred an agenda item dealing with discussion of "strategies for continuous improvement for VTA as we lay groundwork for a new General Manager."  This would have been agenda item 22 which SCVTARU founder Eugene Bradley had offered public comment on. 

VTA Board Chair Joe Pirzynski offered Mr. Bradley a chance to speak on agenda item 22 but Mr. Bradley, sensing entrapment, turned it down.  Instead Mr. Bradley spoke on the need for VTA to remind its bus and light rail operators they should not tell passengers they have no right to complain as they are not lawyers.  This is based on a letter in the Cupertino Courier from a visitor from Livingstone, Texas and his bad experience on line 22 along El Camino Real in the early morning. 

Zakhari also spoke on agenda item 8.  He talked about the annunciators aboard VTA buses continuing to be out of sync in terms of time and location.

After the Policy Advisory Committee report from Chair Kishimoto is made, the first of the bulk consent items comes up.  In this case, agenda item 11 had the VTA Board vote on whether or not to support Senate Bill (SB) 680.  This bill involves adding a $5 surcharge for vehicles registered in Santa Clara County.  The funding - $56 million over 8 years - is to go towards road maintenance.  A specific breakdown of expenditures follows:

• Coordinated traffic signals, ramp metering and so forth ($32 million)
• Improvements to the expressway system ($16 million)
• Litter removal and landscape restoration ($4 million)
• Caltrain bullet cars or station enhancements ($4 million)

To the shock of many in the audience - including the SVLG - SCVTARU Founder Eugene Bradley spoke out against VTA support for SB 680.  Amongst his arguments were that SB680 fails to ask and answer what happened to the money that was supposed to maintain roads via gas taxes - before that money got redirected to the state's general fund.  The VTA Board only answered his concern with blank stares and nearly five (5) seconds of silence.  Both SVLG reps urged the VTA Board to support SB 680.  With SVLG CEO Carl Guardino on hand, the VTA Board approved unanimously its endorsement of SB 680.

After the vote, VTA Board member Dean Chu expressed concern that he has already seen opposition to SB 680 in his travels to Sacramento.  Guardino noted how the San Mateo County VLF surcharge passed by only one vote and that "we stand united."

No reports from any of the committees at all.  The VTA Board meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm.

--SCVTARU - May 20, 2005 

back to vtaridersunion.org main page

Email info@vtaridersunion.org for more information
or to report problems with our website