A legislative proposal to reform the governance structure at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will not advance this year after its author, Assembly member Marc Berman, opted to defer his bill to 2022.
The bill from Berman, D-Menlo Park, would have reduced the size of the VTA board from 12 to nine voting members, with five appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, two by the city of San Jose and two by the county's remaining cities. Board members also would be required to have professional experience in the transportation sector, accounting or finance, project management and executive management to get selected.
Berman's proposal, Assembly Bill 1091, was a response to a 2019 report from the Santa Clara County civil grand jury, which found that the VTA's board of directors suffers from "a lack of experience, continuity and leadership" and that it is dominated by representatives from San Jose and the board of supervisors. The report also cited "frequent tension" between directors' duties to the VTA and the political demands of their local elected positions.
Cities outside San Jose, including Palo Alto, have frequently criticized the VTA for its governance structure, which under the current rules reserve one board seat for Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills (the cities share that seat, currently filled by Palo Alto Vice Mayor Pat Burt, on a rotating basis). The issue of representation has become particularly critical since the passage of Measure B, the 2016 tax measure that is projected to bring in more than $6 billion for transportation projects throughout the county.
Berman said in a statement that while he has seen "strong desire" throughout the county to pursue the reforms, there are "many different opinions on what those reforms should be."
"It is important that we get this right, which will require additional engagement with stakeholders and the public," Berman said. "To allow for this to happen, I have decided not to move AB 1091 until January 2022."
Comments
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 17, 2021 at 11:05 am
Registered user
on May 17, 2021 at 11:05 am
I think it is beyond time to merge all the various different transportation agencies into one. It is time that they had better coordination of schedules and transfers. If nothing else, there could be a single oversight that prevents duplication of administrative hoopla.
Trying to get to an airport, across the Bay or to somewhere like Berkeley or Oakland should not involve multiple agencies.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 17, 2021 at 12:33 pm
Registered user
on May 17, 2021 at 12:33 pm
It's long overdue, as is forcing them to consider changes made by local transportation departments like PA's lane reductions and bollard plantings that create hazardous situations that go uncorrected for years if not decades.
A buddy who works in VTA planning & analysis stopped by last week and we had a long laugh on the convoluted reporting structure where he personally reports in to 3 different agencies.
His comments on the idiocy of putting VTA's Middlefield bus stop so close to Embarcadero that traffic gets stuck IN the intersection when 5+ cars back up behind the bus stopping for the required length of time were unprintable in this family newspaper.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 17, 2021 at 1:19 pm
Registered user
on May 17, 2021 at 1:19 pm
To Bystander,
While I agree with you, that is not what Assembly Member Berman's bill would have done. His proposal needs work. It's probably a good thing that he punted it.
Nonetheless, change is badly needed. The current transit agencies do not coordinate or work efficiently together. There are too many turf and budget battles, getting in the way of serving the public effectively. Also, San Jose has WAY more than their fair share of power on the VTA Board. That needs to be rectified, because San Jose board reps are abusing that power, funneling tax dollars from north county to San Jose. Change is badly needed. It is getting so bad that VTA staff actually seems to feel comfortable being rudely dismissive of north county transit needs in meetings.
Our bus service levels are terrible now. That's a bigger problem because, as part of Covid budget cuts, the previous Council voted to discontinue our City Shuttle service which had been partly subsidized by Caltrain. I don't know if/how we will ever get those dollars back.
If we are going to densify, which the next Housing Element and evolving state law is likely to force, then we absolutely have to have better alternatives to driving. The city simply does not have the right-of-way to build adequate street capacity to move people efficiently if everyone is driving. We badly need a functional multi-modal transportation system. We don't have one now; hence, the traffic congestion we live with. Further, folks who cannot drive, kids and people who are disabled, or who can't afford to own a car, are really at a terrible disadvantage getting around.
I recently learned that federal dollars for affordable housing construction are tied to bus service availability. Another reason we need more transit.
We can do better.
Registered user
Midtown
on May 17, 2021 at 2:13 pm
Registered user
on May 17, 2021 at 2:13 pm
@Consider Your Options wrote "It is getting so bad that VTA staff actually seems to feel comfortable being rudely dismissive of north county transit needs in meetings."
This struck a nerve with me. I've e-mailed VTA very specific concerns about service in north county, and they have several times written back to dismiss my concerns and rationalize why they can't improve service
For example, I pointed out that the small buses usually used on Line 21 are set up to accommodate fewer than the minimum number of individual passengers VTA's website says is allowed under social distancing protocols. I described a specific incident where prospective passengers were denied service, even when they were in a group and seats appeared to be available. I pointed out that capacity protocols related to people traveling in groups were unclear and not applied consistently.
VTA replied that the small buses could accommodate the listed number of passengers "if necessary" and that of course it was important to apply protocols consistently. Yet they wouldn't say what the protocols were.
This example is particular to transit during the pandemic, but the buses usually used for Line 21 are so small that I saw them turn away mobility-impaired passengers BEFORE the pandemic. When this was Line 35, it usually used regular-sized buses, but since expanding to include what was Line 32, VTA usually uses the smaller "community route" buses, even though the combined Line 21 is about twice the length of the previous individual routes.