News

Cities join forces to back transportation-funding plan

Palo Alto prepares to endorse allocations of $6 billion from proposed county tax measure

With Santa Clara County cruising toward a November transportation tax measure, Palo Alto and eight other cities in the north county and west valley are rallying behind a new plan for how the $6 billion from the measure would be spent.

Officials from the cities have been holding meetings in recent months and lobbying the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to pursue a regional strategy for transportation improvements, including a system-wide plan that would integrate mass-transit initiatives, highway fixes and community-level transit services. The measure, which is proposing a 1/2 cent sales-tax increase, is projected to raise about $6 billion over 30 years.

Now, the nine cities -- Palo Alto, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Saratoga and Sunnyvale -- are coalescing around a plan that they hope will raise their stature in negotiations with the VTA. The details of the conceptual plan were hashed out by city representatives during a series of meetings since late 2015. On Jan. 8, city officials agreed to adopt an "advocacy position" that each would take to his or her city council for approval. The Palo Alto council is scheduled to consider this plan on Feb. 8.

Much like a prior proposal from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business-advocacy organization that is leading the drive for the tax measure, the plan from the nine cities would devote $1.2 billion for the extension of BART to San Jose, a project that has eaten up roughly 80 percent of the revenue from the last two ballot measures. The cities' plan, however, also specifies other funding priorities. It would give preference to Caltrain improvements, allocating $1.3 billion: $400 million for projects that would increase the number of passengers the rail line could serve, such as longer trains and station enhancements, and $900 million for a countywide "grade-separation" program. The latter would submerge the train tracks under street crossings, or vice versa. It's an initiative that has emerged in the past year as one of Palo Alto's top transportation priorities.

In addition to the rail projects, the cities' funding plan would devote $1 billion to local streets and roads, funds that each jurisdiction could use for either maintenance or new projects. Another $1 billion would be used for improving county expressways, while $500 million would be allocated to the "streets and highways" category, which focuses on "regionally significant roadways," according to a new report from Palo Alto's Department of Planning and Community Environment.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

In another departure from prior proposals, the cities coalition proposes to allocate $500 million for congestion relief and "transportation-demand management" programs, which aim to get people out of their cars and into other modes of transportation.

While the agreement between the cities allows each to make its own tweaks to the overall plan, the idea is to present a unified vision and increase the bargaining power of those jurisdictions that are farthest from the county's power center in San Jose.

The concept plan has already secured the unanimous endorsement of the Palo Alto council's Rail Committee, which voted on Jan. 27 to forward the discussion to the full council. At the meeting, members of the committee lauded the proposal, particularly its emphasis on Caltrain improvements and traffic-reduction measures. They acknowledged, however, that some of the spending categories (including "expressway") remain vague and are subject to further refinement.

Councilman Tom DuBois said he supports improving the interchange at Page Mill Road and Interstate 280 to accommodate more cars and create better bike pathways. Others on the council have been more skeptical about the county proposal to add new lanes on Page Mill, unless the additional lanes are carpool lanes.

Everyone on the Rail Committee agreed, however, that allocating funds from the tax measure for reducing the number of solo car commuters would be a good investment. DuBois recommended devoting $500 million -- or about 8 percent -- of the tax-measure funds to congestion relief. Transportation-demand management is cheaper than construction, he noted. Mayor Pat Burt concurred.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

"We want to see those dollars used for congestion relief in a broad sense, with traffic management and transportation-demand-management measures, rather than merely expressway expansion and capacity," Burt said at the Rail Committee meeting.

Committee members agreed that some of the definitions in the concept plan will need to be hashed out further. They also agreed that changing the allotments at this point could jeopardize the coalition, which is why they unanimously approved the plan as presented.

"If there is a need for north county and west valley cities to show a unified front at this stage, knowing that this isn't written in stone, I'm comfortable with that," Committee Chair Marc Berman said.

If the full council concurs and adopts the coalition's position, it will follow in the footsteps of Mountain View's council, which voted 6-1 (with John Inks dissenting) to support the plan. The councils of Campbell and Cupertino are also scheduled to take up the subject in early February.

Whether all the councils get behind the tentative proposal, everyone expects further changes down the line. Councilman Greg Scharff, who in late January attended a meeting with officials from other coalition cities and with Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said he expects the discussion in advance of the ballot measure to be an "iterative process." Yet he also called the funding plan "a really positive proposal" and urged his colleagues not to make any changes that would undermine the cities' negotiating position.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

"We should strongly support (getting) as close as we can get to this as possible," Scharff said.

Related content:

Palo Alto seeks larger benefits from 2016 tax measure

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Cities join forces to back transportation-funding plan

Palo Alto prepares to endorse allocations of $6 billion from proposed county tax measure

With Santa Clara County cruising toward a November transportation tax measure, Palo Alto and eight other cities in the north county and west valley are rallying behind a new plan for how the $6 billion from the measure would be spent.

Officials from the cities have been holding meetings in recent months and lobbying the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to pursue a regional strategy for transportation improvements, including a system-wide plan that would integrate mass-transit initiatives, highway fixes and community-level transit services. The measure, which is proposing a 1/2 cent sales-tax increase, is projected to raise about $6 billion over 30 years.

Now, the nine cities -- Palo Alto, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Saratoga and Sunnyvale -- are coalescing around a plan that they hope will raise their stature in negotiations with the VTA. The details of the conceptual plan were hashed out by city representatives during a series of meetings since late 2015. On Jan. 8, city officials agreed to adopt an "advocacy position" that each would take to his or her city council for approval. The Palo Alto council is scheduled to consider this plan on Feb. 8.

Much like a prior proposal from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business-advocacy organization that is leading the drive for the tax measure, the plan from the nine cities would devote $1.2 billion for the extension of BART to San Jose, a project that has eaten up roughly 80 percent of the revenue from the last two ballot measures. The cities' plan, however, also specifies other funding priorities. It would give preference to Caltrain improvements, allocating $1.3 billion: $400 million for projects that would increase the number of passengers the rail line could serve, such as longer trains and station enhancements, and $900 million for a countywide "grade-separation" program. The latter would submerge the train tracks under street crossings, or vice versa. It's an initiative that has emerged in the past year as one of Palo Alto's top transportation priorities.

In addition to the rail projects, the cities' funding plan would devote $1 billion to local streets and roads, funds that each jurisdiction could use for either maintenance or new projects. Another $1 billion would be used for improving county expressways, while $500 million would be allocated to the "streets and highways" category, which focuses on "regionally significant roadways," according to a new report from Palo Alto's Department of Planning and Community Environment.

In another departure from prior proposals, the cities coalition proposes to allocate $500 million for congestion relief and "transportation-demand management" programs, which aim to get people out of their cars and into other modes of transportation.

While the agreement between the cities allows each to make its own tweaks to the overall plan, the idea is to present a unified vision and increase the bargaining power of those jurisdictions that are farthest from the county's power center in San Jose.

The concept plan has already secured the unanimous endorsement of the Palo Alto council's Rail Committee, which voted on Jan. 27 to forward the discussion to the full council. At the meeting, members of the committee lauded the proposal, particularly its emphasis on Caltrain improvements and traffic-reduction measures. They acknowledged, however, that some of the spending categories (including "expressway") remain vague and are subject to further refinement.

Councilman Tom DuBois said he supports improving the interchange at Page Mill Road and Interstate 280 to accommodate more cars and create better bike pathways. Others on the council have been more skeptical about the county proposal to add new lanes on Page Mill, unless the additional lanes are carpool lanes.

Everyone on the Rail Committee agreed, however, that allocating funds from the tax measure for reducing the number of solo car commuters would be a good investment. DuBois recommended devoting $500 million -- or about 8 percent -- of the tax-measure funds to congestion relief. Transportation-demand management is cheaper than construction, he noted. Mayor Pat Burt concurred.

"We want to see those dollars used for congestion relief in a broad sense, with traffic management and transportation-demand-management measures, rather than merely expressway expansion and capacity," Burt said at the Rail Committee meeting.

Committee members agreed that some of the definitions in the concept plan will need to be hashed out further. They also agreed that changing the allotments at this point could jeopardize the coalition, which is why they unanimously approved the plan as presented.

"If there is a need for north county and west valley cities to show a unified front at this stage, knowing that this isn't written in stone, I'm comfortable with that," Committee Chair Marc Berman said.

If the full council concurs and adopts the coalition's position, it will follow in the footsteps of Mountain View's council, which voted 6-1 (with John Inks dissenting) to support the plan. The councils of Campbell and Cupertino are also scheduled to take up the subject in early February.

Whether all the councils get behind the tentative proposal, everyone expects further changes down the line. Councilman Greg Scharff, who in late January attended a meeting with officials from other coalition cities and with Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said he expects the discussion in advance of the ballot measure to be an "iterative process." Yet he also called the funding plan "a really positive proposal" and urged his colleagues not to make any changes that would undermine the cities' negotiating position.

"We should strongly support (getting) as close as we can get to this as possible," Scharff said.

Related content:

Palo Alto seeks larger benefits from 2016 tax measure

Comments

Politicians agree on higher taxed
Bailey Park
on Feb 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm
Politicians agree on higher taxed, Bailey Park
on Feb 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm

Promise the usual politician a piece of the pie and that politician will support almost anything. Try to tax corporations and see what happens.


arithmetician
Monta Loma
on Feb 7, 2016 at 12:15 am
arithmetician, Monta Loma
on Feb 7, 2016 at 12:15 am

I'm quite skeptical of these numbers: $1 billion for "county expressways", but $500,000 each for "roads and highways" and "congestion management"? Is it understood that $1 billion is 2,000 times as much as $500,000? The latter isn't enough to draft an EIR for one new crosswalk. I strongly suspect that $500 million has been incorrectly downgraded to $500,000.


bjd
Old Mountain View
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:06 am
bjd, Old Mountain View
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:06 am

@arithmetician, some of the numbers in this article are indeed off by a factor of 1,000. The VTA's EnvisionSV website has more information about the allocations they are considering: Web Link


re: EnvisionSV
another community
on Feb 7, 2016 at 8:59 pm
re: EnvisionSV, another community
on Feb 7, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Very illuminating to look at the roster of VTA's ad hoc committee "Envision Silicon Valley"

Web Link

The Committee’s purpose is to examine the transportation needs of Silicon Valley and guide the creation of a potential transportation ballot initiative.

... not a single representative from North County.


Mike
Old Mountain View
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:52 pm
Mike, Old Mountain View
on Feb 7, 2016 at 9:52 pm

BART and Caltrain are a waste of money: expensive, inefficient systems that don't go where people want to go.

Improve highways and expand bus service instead.


Vote NO
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:29 am
Vote NO, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:29 am

Tax payers have given and given and given again to VTA and they have nothing to show for it. At least caltyrain is ;packed each morning. Empty busses or packed trains, you tell me which is working better.
No more endless taxing by VTA! We've gone that route many times.
This time I'm voting no.


Steve Ly
another community
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 pm
Steve Ly, another community
on Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 pm

Here comes Carl Guardino and merry band of crony capitalists at the grossly misnamed “Silicon Valley ‘Leadership’ Group,” hoping to sucker those of modest means into raising their taxes once again, despite the fact that voters have already done so multiple times. Over the last several elections, voters in Santa Clara County have passed multiple tax and fee increases including VTA’s 2000 Measure A ½-cent and 2008 measure B ¼-cent sales taxes, Santa Clara County’s Measure A 1/8 cent sales tax, the state prop 30 ¼ cent sales tax and the 2010 Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee of $10. Additionally, we’re on the hook to pay back numerous state bond issues including high speed rail, last year’s Proposition 1 water bond and the infrastructure bonds of 2006.

Before increasing taxes YET AGAIN, waste needs to be removed from transportation projects. For example, VTA needs to eliminate waste and “gold plating” of the BART extension’s cost by reducing the scope to eliminate duplicate facilities. Specifically, a revised “build alternative” needs to be added to the study that eliminates the duplicative and wasteful section between the San Jose and Santa Clara Caltrain stations. The BART segment from the San Jose to Santa Clara Caltrain stations would duplicate both the existing Caltrain line and VTA’s 22 and 522 buses to a station that has approximately 1000 riders each weekday. This is extremely wasteful.

Why don’t the wealthy high-rollers in the “Leadership Group” suggest taxing their rich companies and leave the little guy alone for a change?


Greg perry
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Greg perry, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2016 at 2:32 pm



You can add as many projects as you like to the list.

They didn't built the north county projects from the 2000 ballot measure or the 2008 measure. What on earth makes you think they will build the north county projects on the 2016 measure?


Konrad M. Sosnow
Cuesta Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Konrad M. Sosnow, Cuesta Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Unfortunately, VTA has a long history of going in its own direction and ignoring input from Santa Clara County residents and their city governments. BART to San Jose, and BRT are VTA's priorities.


Make Demands
Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Make Demands, Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 3:56 pm

I appreciate that Palo Alto is getting specific about what they want to achieve. We have a lot of transit projects that need funding in Mountain View. Can we get a commitment to fund them?

No more money for BART. It's not our fault that 80% of our transit money wasn't enough for them. It's a poorly thought out extension that doesn't impact the Peninsula whatsoever.


No TDM or Big Brother Fat Cats
Cuesta Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
No TDM or Big Brother Fat Cats, Cuesta Park
on Feb 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm

I was very suspicious about $500 million dedicated to the phrase "transportation-demand management" so I Googled it. It's deliberately vague Big Brother bureaucratic code phrase that means "Force people out of their cars and onto grossly inferior and inconvenient public transit, whether or not they want or need it."

The VTA's crazed and politically incorrect obsession to ruin El Camino Real and other main arteries with dedicated bus and van lanes is a perfect example of TDM at its worst. If the VTA is allowed to have its way, it would add many wasted hours per week to many peoples' commutes to industrial and govt jobs, most of which are far away from El Camino Real and which would require one or more bus transfers to reach and leave. Add the time to walk to and from El Camino Real and your jobs, and you have a real commuting nightmare --- as bad or worse than San Francisco.

Do our abusive VTA Big Brother bureaucrats care? Not a bit, as long as they can collect their grossly excessive salaries, benefits, and gold plated pensions --- some well in excess of $100,000 per year with retirement at age 60 or thereabouts. Compare that to Social Security!!! [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


OMV Resident
Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 5:59 pm
OMV Resident, Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 5:59 pm

@No TDM or Big Brother Fat Cats -
Thanks very much for explaining your dystopian worldview to us, and your extensive research of TDM based on a Google search.

It's interesting because when I Google "TDM Santa Clara County" (which is quite relevant, given we're talking about a possible tax measure for the county, right?) one of the top ten hits I find is this presentation: Web Link
which talks about the TDM program at Stanford University and how it has given students and staff a ton more options for how to get to campus, reduced the percent of employees driving alone to campus from 72% to 47% in 12 years, stabilized commute-related CO2 emissions at 1990 levels despite an increasing commuting population, and avoided over $150M in parking construction costs.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Stanford's TDM program has taken cars off the road so that when YOU drive down El Camino, there are FEWER CARS than there otherwise would have been. So it turns out that this obviously Big Brother-ish, Commie TDM thing has actually benefitted you as a driver. Quite ironic, isn't it?


OMV Resident
Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm
OMV Resident, Old Mountain View
on Feb 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


MVWoman
Martens-Carmelita
on Feb 9, 2016 at 12:45 am
MVWoman, Martens-Carmelita
on Feb 9, 2016 at 12:45 am

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language].

As for the VTA's latest proposal, it is a fact that they have not honored their past pledges to update/improve transportation options in the North County. I will vote NO on giving them another dime of tax money - and will encourage others to vote the same until we can clean house and have a truly representative VTA. Current members have shown they cannot be trusted.


Intelligent MV Woman
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2016 at 5:03 am
Intelligent MV Woman, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2016 at 5:03 am

I'm glad that BART will continue to expand and that we will have rapid bus service on El Camino. Any and all problems that VTA Projects have experienced are due to special interest NIMBY's that sabotage the project by getting changes made that lower the value.

Light rail would have been fast and popular were it not for this politicking that messed with the routes and technology. If we actually let our transit professionals build the projects they recommend, we would have amazing public transportation options.

Most of my neighbors here support VTA, so I'm so glad that MV voted their approval!


Vote NO on 3rd VTA tax
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2016 at 10:12 am
Vote NO on 3rd VTA tax, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2016 at 10:12 am

Oh stop it. VTA has been exposed due to its total failure at trying to complete even the most simple projects including the failed attempt at BRT in SJ.
They need to cool their jets. We already are paying TWO separate taxes to VTA. They do not need a third. Have you seen how much they pay their executives?!?!

Vote NO to this THIRD tax they want to place on us.
It's time to make VTA hit the reset button and clean their broken house before they ask us for additional funding


mvresident2003
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:03 am
mvresident2003, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Feb 10, 2016 at 10:03 am

Agreed, solid NO on any more taxes to VTA. I went up and down ECR yesterday from 4-6pm, the majority of busses were almost empty, certainly less than 10 people per bus. EVERY SINGLE BUS. Where is this great ridership you supporters refer to? There aren't even enough riders to cover the cost of the driver. Increased busses are not a viable, sustainable option. We are Silicon Valley, we should be able to come up with a better solution than a failed bus system for gods sake!


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

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.