News

Palo Alto joins call for governance change at VTA

City Council backs letter asking agency to help fund a forum for cities to debate possible improvements to agency's governing structure

Palo Alto this week endorsed a scathing report calling for governance changes at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority, though the city has yet to determine what changes it wants to see.

The City Council unanimously approved on Monday a letter that represents the city's official response to a recent report released in June from that Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. The report concluded that the VTA's operating performance has been deteriorating over the past decade and that its governance structure is deeply flawed. The agency's board of directors, the report found, suffers from "a lack of experience, continuity and leadership" and is dominated by representatives from San Jose and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

The Palo Alto City Council, which for years has complained about being marginalized at the regional body, overwhelmingly endorsed this assessment. Councilman Greg Tanaka wondered whether it would be possible for the city to officially split away from the transit agency, potentially with other partner cities from the northern end of the county.

"We're giving a lot of dollars and not getting a lot of services," Tanaka said.

The tensions between the city and the transit agency may flare up further in the coming months, as the VTA finalizes its implementation plan for distributing $700 million in Measure B funds for grade separation — the redesign of the rail crossings so that the tracks would no longer intersect with streets — in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. City Manager Ed Shikada said Wednesday that the agency's Executive Director Nuria Fernandez had indicated that the funding would not be based on the number of grade crossings in each city that need to be separated.

That criterion would have favored Palo Alto, which has four of the eight crossings. At Wednesday's meeting of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel, a group that is helping city staff and the council plan for grade separation, Shikada said that any assumption that funding would be based on the number of projects was "never written down" and that the "commitment does not exist."

"The process going forward is one they're putting together that will involve criteria (such as) project readiness, cost-effectiveness and others in making the funding allocation decision," Shikada said.

The new criteria, particularly "project readiness" would put Palo Alto at a disadvantage in obtaining funding, with both Mountain View and Sunnyvale well ahead of the city in defining their respective preferred alternatives. The Palo Alto City Council is now hoping to make a decision on its preferred alternatives by spring 2020.

The letter that the council approved Monday endorses the grand jury's recommendation that the VTA engage with smaller cities to discuss alternative governance structures for VTA. It also argues, however, that smaller cities currently don't have a consensus on the issue and recommends that the VTA provide funding for a process that would facilitate such a discussion.

The letter also suggests that the VTA's governance should be considered not just in terms of population distribution (which clearly favors San Jose) but also based on factors such as employment and sales-tax generation.

"As a major employment center and sales tax generator at the edge of VTA's service territory, Palo Alto has historically been unrepresented in VTA policy decision in ways that do not serve the traveling public," the letter signed by Mayor Eric Filseth states. "How representation relates to communities of interest with shared permanent transportation issues, such as Caltrain and High Speed Rail interests may also be a consideration.

"Pending decisions on railroad grade separation funding under Measure B pose further risks to VTA's ability to follow through on commitments made to Santa Clara voters, such that a thoughtful consideration of governance is particularly timely."

The grand jury also recommended that the county or another VTA agency propose legislation that would change the governance structure of the VTA, which is set in the California Public Utilities Code. Potential changes that could be considered include increasing a directors' term of service (from the current two-year terms), adding term limits or allowing the appointment of directors who are not elected officials.

The grand jury report concludes that, more so than in 2004 and 2009 (the last two times the VTA was reviewed), the board is "in need of structural change to enable it to better protect the interests of the County's taxpayers and address the many complex challenges presented by emerging trends in transportation, rapidly evolving technology and the changing needs of Silicon Valley residents."

While Palo Alto's letter states that the city is open to participating in developing such legislation, council members also recognized on Monday night that changing the VTA's governance structure would be a challenge, particularly for a city like Palo Alto, which is positioned at the northern end of the county.

Councilwoman Liz Kniss, the only council member who has served on the VTA board, said any member in the northern end of the county is considered an "outlier."

"We can make any number of suggestions and they will continue on as they have been," Kniss said.

Related content:

VTA board members support shake-up after scathing grand jury report

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

10 people like this
Posted by Alan
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 22, 2019 at 12:41 pm

It is not VTA's fault that Palo Alto cannot make up its mind on the grade separations.


4 people like this
Posted by Huh
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 22, 2019 at 7:03 pm


VTA is even more screwed up than Palo Alto city government.


3 people like this
Posted by Downsize The Bus Lines
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Aug 22, 2019 at 7:44 pm

Palo Alto should have its own independent city bus line...perhaps coordinating with the Marguerite Shuttle.

The VTA covers a lot of area & that is probably the number 1 problem in terms of service, reliability & ridership experience.


Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 22, 2019 at 8:01 pm

We should be given greater representation as we are in the extreme north of Santa Clara County AND we contribute lots of $ AND we need services, too.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 23, 2019 at 7:53 am

I expect a lot of strong word and even a memo to come from City Admnins, but that's it. All smoke and no fire from our City execs. First they will grand-stand and say they are going to help residents and they are going to roll-over. It's like this with every major project.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 23, 2019 at 8:41 am

I read the grand jury report and I admit that I was disappointed. Certainly, there have been some lapses of judgement, such as the Eastridge light rail extension. But, overall, I don't see a governance problem, I see a "Broadacre City" Web Link problem. While most of the Peninsula is a kind of linear city, down to Mountain View, most of Santa Clara County was developed in the era of low job concentrations. That makes economic public transit very difficult. Transit governance is not going to solve that-- putting jobs where transit service exists will move things in the right direction. We have to subsidize transit heavily now and encourage job growth on transit corridors, e.g. VTA light rail, instead of being spread out.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong Palo Alto's last day of business will be Sept. 29
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 4,649 views

Electric Buses: Challenges and Opportunities
By Sherry Listgarten | 23 comments | 2,759 views

Troubling safety issues in our fair city
By Diana Diamond | 16 comments | 1,403 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 1,039 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,004 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info