Inquiry Into the Board Structure and Financial Management of the Valley Transportation

Conclusions 1

• CL1 Page 12
  The VTA Board has not reacted to the present budget problems with diligence, has depleted the financial reserves in the system, and has borrowed against future tax revenues rather than resolving an ongoing operational deficit. The Board has allowed personnel costs to expand more rapidly than revenues. The Board is too large, too transient, and too occupied with other duties to provide direction and effective oversight to the staff in running VTA. The Board should be reconstituted as a smaller, dedicated board by enabling legislation, perhaps along the model of the SCVWD, with members appointed to serve that role as their primary public service. Recommendations to the County’s state legislators for enabling legislation might come from any of several sources such as the VTA Board itself or any of the cities or towns in the County. However, the County Board of Supervisors was involved in the original enabling legislation and may be best suited to represent the County as a whole and the interests of transportation for the entire region. The Board needs to reevaluate its strategic plan for how the various parts of its system will serve the County, how funds are to be split between various capital projects by year, and what operating subsidies are required now and in the future. The Grand Jury supports public transit and understands the urgent need for improving transit in the I-880/I-680 Corridor. The Grand Jury would have been delighted to have received a logical and financially compelling justification for putting BART at the head of its priority and funding list from VTA. It did not. The VTA needs to discuss what the County transportation system sacrifices in order to gain the benefits of BART. Voters need to be more demanding of information before voting for financially unrealistic promises. Finding I The VTA Board, as currently constituted of appointed members from elected bodies in the County, does not provide direct voter representation on transportation issues, makes accountability remote, provides for conflicts in responsibilities, and overextends Board members performing both their elected and appointed responsibilities. 12 Recommendation I The current structure of the VTA Board should be made more responsive to the needs and financial management of the regional transportation system as a whole by providing for, via enabling legislation, members dedicated to transportation that are either directly elected, appointed as their main public service responsibility, or some combination of the two. The enabling legislation should be sponsored by one or more of the major constituent agencies in the VTA, such as the County Board of Supervisors. Finding II The VTA Board as currently constituted is too large and its members too transient to efficiently provide management oversight to VTA. As a result, the VTA Board has not reacted to the present budget problems with diligence, has depleted the financial reserves in the system, and has borrowed against future tax revenues rather than resolving an ongoing operational deficit. Recommendation II The current size of the VTA Board should be reduced, via enabling legislation, to a smaller Board of 5 to 7 members that would be more involved in and accountable for the financial and operational management of VTA. The enabling legislation should be sponsored by one or more of the major constituent agencies in the VTA, such as the County Board of Supervisors. Finding III The VTA Board has proceeded with a transit capital improvement plan that cannot accomplish all that was promised in Measure A. Recommendation III The VTA Board should delay expenditures for BART and provide more complete funding for other transit options. If VTA wants authorization of this change in plans by the voters, this should be done after a clear explanation to the public of the relative costs of the various transit options, and before a request for an additional ½ cent sales tax increase. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 27th day of May 2004. ________________________________ Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 13 References Documents Bay Area Rapid Transit website: http://www.bart.gov/about/bod/bodmembers.asp. Board of Directors Meeting and Workshop Meeting Minutes, 2003 and 2004. Don Gage, Chair, Board of Directors, VTA, letter to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, February 11, 2004. Greg Perry, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, “VTA Costs Are Out of Control,” San Jose Mercury News, January 28, 2004. “LRT Ridership Projections,” Transportation Agency Transmittal Memorandum, June 17, 1987. Measure A ½ Cent Transit Sales Tax, Official Ballot for the November 7, 2000, County General Election. Peter Cipolla, VTA General Manager, VTA Memorandum entitled “Opinion/Editorial article regarding VTA in January 28, 2004 San Jose Mercury News,” January 29, 2004. Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor – BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation [signed by VTA (1/27/04) and the Federal Transit Administration (3/2/04)]. “Transportation Injustice – Why BART-to-San Jose cost overruns will devastate bus and rail service,” Transportation and Land Use Coalition, March 6, 2003, http://transcoalition.org/. Interviews County Supervisor, September 11, 2003. County Supervisor, October 10, 2003. County Supervisor, November 6, 2003. County Supervisor, May 20, 2004. Executive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute, November 6, 2003. Executive Director, Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Oakland, CA, January 20, 2004, and May 13, 2004. 14 Interviews - Continued Research Director, Mineta Transportation Institute, October 1, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 12, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 18, 2003. VTA CFO, September 16, 2003. Meetings Attended VTA Board and committee meetings. VTA Chief of Staff, Chief Operating Officer, Deputy Director of Service and Operations Planning General Counsel, Transportation Policy and Program Manager, Board Secretary, Controller, Principal Transportation Planner Congestion Management Program, Director Marketing and Customer Service, BART Deputy Project Manager, April 12, 2004. 15 Appendix A Metrics for Four Options for Increasing Capacity in the I-880/I-680 Corridor Daily Riders Cost per New Rider Capital Cost ($M) Oper. Cost/Yr ($M) MTC VTA MTC VTA MTC VTA MTC VTA Rapid Bus Service to Fremont, Etc. 5,000 6,800 $10 $30 $20 $379 $12 $28 Light Rail to meet BART at Warm Springs 8,500 37,661 $22 $15 $500 $1,514 $14 $42 Expanded Commuter Rail 4,600 24,354 $35 $23 $470 $1,521 $10 $38 BART to San Jose 11,500 39,300 $100 $33 $4,053 $4,112 $18 $65 Ridership and cost figures for adding transit capacity to the I-880/I-680 Corridor are from the MTC as referenced in a TALC document, and were updated by VTA to provide more equivalent scenarios. The numbers are very dependent on the assumptions used and can be skewed by differences in details and biases in the comparisons. For instance, a large portion of the difference in the ‘Cost per New Rider’ for the ‘Rapid Bus Service’ is the inclusion in the VTA model of the construction of dedicated highway fly-overs for buses. 16 Appendix B VTP2030 Transit Investment Plan [amounts in millions of dollars, after loans and operating subsidies] Federal & Total State Funds Measure A Unfunded % Measure A Funds Allocation Cost (on hold) Funding Cost Funded BART to San Jose & Santa Clara $4,112 $1,590 $2,453 $69 98% Downtown East Valley $550 $550 $0 100% Bus Rapid Transit $50 $33 $17 66% Caltrain Service Upgrades $171 $155 $16 91% New Rail Corridors Study $1 $1 $0 100% New Rail Corridors (TBD Phase 1 funded) $1,220 $188 $1,032 15% Airport People Mover Connector $400 $222 $178 56% Caltrain - South County $100 $61 $39 61% Rt. 17 Bus Service Improvements $2 $2 $0 100% Dumbarton Rail $278 $44 $234 16% Palo Alto Inter-modal Station $200 $50 $150 25% ACE Upgrade $22 $22 $0 100% Caltrain Electrification $650 $233 $417 36% Totals $7,756 $1,590 $4,014 $2,152 72% Total Regional Discretionary Unfunded % Non-Measure A Funds Allocation Cost Funding Funding Cost Funded STIP funds allocated to BART above $0 =$107-$107 $0 $0 - Zero Emission Buses $277 $277 $0 100% Highway Projects $1,852 $446 $1,406 24% Expressway Projects $416 $150 $266 36% Local Streets $288 $230 $58 80% Intelligent Systems $140 $28 $112 20% Sound Walls $10 $10 $0 100% Paving $510 $202 $100 $208 59% Bicycle $85 $32 $53 38% Pedestrian $113 $37 $0 $76 33% Landscape $0 $0 $0 - Totals $3,691 $239 $1,273 $2,179 41% Total Outside VTA Unfunded % Totals Cost Funding Funding Cost Funded ALL Funds $11,447 $1,829 $5,287 $4,331 62% BART $4,112 $1,590 $2,453 $69 98% All Except BART $7,335 $239 $2,834 $4,262 42% All Measure A Except BART $3,644 $0 $1,561 $2,083 43% Totals without funding BART $7,335 $239 $5,287 $1,809 75% Measure A without funding BART $3,644 $0 $4,014 ($370) 110% 17 Figure 1 VTA Ridership History 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Fiscal Year 18 pihsrediR launnA latoT Bus Caltrain Light Rail OUTREACH Altamont Express Light Rail Shuttles ACE Shuttles Dumbarton Express Highway 17 Express Figure 2 VTA Ridership History 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Fiscal Year 19 pihsrediR launnA latoT Bus Caltrain Light Rail OUTREACH Altamont Express Light Rail Shuttles ACE Shuttles Dumbarton Express Highway 17 Express Figure 3 I-880/I-680 Corridor Mass Transit Options $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Rapid Bus Light Rail Commuter Rail BART 20 )M$( stsoC latipaC $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 )M$( stsoC gnitarepO launnA VTA Capital Cost TALC Capital Cost VTA Oper. Cost/Yr TALC Oper. Cost/Yr Figure 4 VTA 30 Year Funding Allocation $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 R T t o S a n J o s e & S a nt a Cl ar a Hi g h w N a e y w P L r i g o h j e t c R t s ail C orri d or s D o w C n a t o ltr w a n i n E a st V all e y E x p p P o r e r a t s v P s i n w e g o a p y l e P M r o o j e v c e t s r C o n n e ct or B us es Ot h c e y r c R l e a , i P l L e o d c a e l s S tri t a r P e n a e , l t o S s o A u lt o n d I n w t e a r l - l s m o d al St at I i o n n t elli g e nt S y st e m s B A Air Bi 21 )M$( nalP tnemtsevnI Unfunded Portion VTA Funding Figure 5 Alternate 30 Year Funding Allocation without BART $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 T t o S a n J o s e & S a nt a Cl ar H a i g h w N a e y w P L r i o g j h e t c R t s ail C orri d or s D o w C n a t o ltr w ai n n E a st V all e y E x p P o r e r a t s v P s i n w e g o a p y l e P r M oj o e v ct e s r C o n n e ct or B u s e s Ot h e y r c R l e a , i P L l o e c d a e l s S tr t i r a e P n e a , t s l S o o A u lt n o d I w nt a e l r l - s m o d al St a I t n i o t e n lli g e nt S y st e m s R p c B A Air Bi 22 )M$( nalP tnemtsevnI Unfunded Portion VTA Funding

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.