Out look
Fw: San Jose City Council Comment on VTA local expenditure plan (Agenda 5.1) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 4/ 13/ 2026 4: 53 PM
To Agendadesk <Agendadesk @sanjoseca.gov>
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tow er 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1 260
Fax:408-292-62 07
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Kaleo Mark
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 4 :44 PM
To: City Clerk <city [email protected]>
Subject : San Jose City Council Comment on \/TA local expenditure plan (Agenda 5.1) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel You don't ofte n get email from . Learn why this is imP.orta nt San Jose City Coucilmembers, thank you ve I y much for considering the expenditure plan for Santa Clara County's discretionaiy portion of the Connect Bay Area ballot measure.
The measure as a whole is critically impo1tant for the city; without it, Caltrain and BART service would be cut drastically leading to crippling increases in traffic congestion, and adding grave risk to the hope ofextending BART to San Jose iffiART service is greatly diminished.
fu addition to the funds dedicated to Caltrain, and to BART from other paits of the region, the Connect Bay Area ballot measure would provide $264 million annually in "return to source" local funding - which has the potential to provide major improvements for Santa Clara County.
For local Santa Clara County investments, please prioritize investments that serve people who depend on transit, increase ridership, improve the cost-effectiveness of the transit system to serve more people per dollar, and make progress on climate and improving affordability for residents at a time of skyrocketing gas prices.
I strongly support strategies that VTA has developed that advance these goals:
- The Visionary Network to provide a network of frequent service up to par with other parts of the Bay and other parts of the country, and improves paratransit by improving the fixed route service
- Transit priority investments as outlined in VTA’s Speed and Reliability program to make buses and light rail faster and more reliable, more cost-effective, and to move more people for the money.
I urge the San José City Council to prioritize these investments in its recommendations to the VTA board and use at least 80% of the funding on these priorities.
At a time when federal funding for transit is getting eviscerated and affordability is a priority for many San Jose residents, please focus these investments where they can be the most uniquely beneficial, on the Visionary Network and Transit Priority investments to bring VTA service to the level that San Jose residents deserve and depend on.
Thank you.
Kaleo Mark
Oakland, California 94612
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
Fw: San Jose City Council Comments on VTA S863 local expenditure plan From City Clerk <
Date Tue 4/14/2026 8:24 AM
To Agendadesk <
೦ 1 attachment (364 KB)
San Jose Comments on VTA local expenditure plan 4 14 26.pdf; Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
From: Adina Levin
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 8:13 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: San Jose City Council Comments on VTA S863 local expenditure plan [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear City Clerk,
Can you please count this message for today's meeting? It was sent before 8 to a typo of the address. - Adina
- ----------- Forwarded messa
From: Adina Levin
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 7:56AM
Subject: San Jose City Council Comments on VTA SB63 local expenditure plan To:
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Staff,
Attached please find comments on Agenda 5. 1, VTA Local Investment P lan from several organizations.
Thank you for your consideration,
Adina
Adina Levin
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources .
To: San Jose City Council
Re: Agenda 5.1, VTA Local Investment Plan - staff report Date: April 13, 2026
San Jose City Council Comments on VTA local expenditure plan Honorable City Council Members
Thank you very much for considering the expenditure plan for Santa Clara County’s discretionary portion of the Connect Bay Area ballot measure.
The measure as a whole is critically important for the city; without it, Caltrain and BART service would be cut drastically – leading to crippling increases in traffic congestion, and adding grave risk to the hope of extending BART to San Jose if BART service is greatly diminished.
In addition to the funds dedicated to Caltrain, and to BART from other parts of the region, the Connect Bay Area ballot measure would provide $264 million annually in “return to source” local funding – which has the potential to provide major improvements for Santa Clara County.
For local Santa Clara County investments, we want to see priority on serving people who depend on transit, increasing ridership, improving the cost-effectiveness of the transit system to serve more people per dollar, making progress on climate and improving affordability for residents at a time of skyrocketing gas prices.
We strongly support strategies that VTA has developed that advance these goals:
* The Visionary Network to provide a network of frequent service up to par with other parts of the Bay UBllO
ADUOOAJES
MAKING RIGHTS REAL
Seamless
Bay Area
and other parts of the country (see chart below), and improves paratransit by improving the fixed route service
* Transit priority investments as outlined in VTA’s Speed and Reliability program to make buses and light rail faster and more reliable, more cost-effective, and to move more people for the money.
We strongly urge the San José City Council to prioritize these investments in its recommendations to the VTA board and use at least 80% of the funding on these priorities.
At a time when federal funding for transit is getting eviscerated and affordability is a priority for many San Jose residents, we urge you to focus these investments where they can be the most uniquely beneficial, on the Visionary Network and Transit Priority investments to bring VTA service to the level that San Jose residents deserve and depend on.
Thank you for your consideration,
Harry Neil
South Bay Organizer, Transbay Coalition
Sheri Burns
Executive DIrector, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Adina Levin
Executive Director, Seamless Bay Area
Laurel Paget-Seekins
Senior Policy Advocate, Public Advocates
VTA Provides Less Service Per Capita Than Most Peers
Annwl Tranlk s.rYlce Hovn per C:.ph:a
... ,,_,..,,.,._,_,
u 4.4
...
... 3.2
...
u 2.2
LO 1.8 1.9
u 1.3 1.3 1.3
LO 0.8
I I I ... I ...
-
.,,. ... _"" -T-
..._ -
..:r"""' __,
- ... ,,_
G y uuo
-
~ m ,JJi!!:; .. , •• u ,,_
111-HETll0
-
Outlook
Fw: San Jose City Council Comments on VT A local expenditure plan (Agenda 5.1) From City Clerk <city [email protected]>
Date Tue 4/ 14/2026 8:25 AM
To Agendadesk <Agendadesk@sanjoseca .gov>
Office of the City Clerk I Cit y of San Jose
th 200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14 Floor
San Jose, CA 9511 3
Mai n: 408-535-126 0
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Kathryn Hedges ·
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject : San Jose City Council Comments on VTA local expend iture plan (Agenda 5.1) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel San Jose City Coucihnembers:
Thank you ve 1 y much for considering the expenditure plan for Santa Clara County's discretionru.y po11ion of the Connect Bay Area ballot measure. I am a long time transit user.
The measure as a whole is critically impo11ant for the city; without it, Caltrain and BART service would be cut drastically - leading to crippling increases in traffic congestion, and adding grave risk to the hope ofextending BART to San Jose ifBART service is greatly diminished.
In addition to the funds dedicated to Caltrain, and to BART from other pru.1s of the region, the Connect Bay Area ballot measure would provide $264 million annually in "rehnn to source" local funding – which has the potential to provide major improvements for Santa Clara County.
For local Santa Clara County investments, please prioritize investments that serve people who depend on transit, increase ridership, improve the cost-effectiveness of the transit system to serve more people per dollar, and make progress on climate and improving affordability for residents at a time of skyrocketing gas prices.
I strongly support strategies that VTA has developed that advance these goals:
- The Visionary Network to provide a network of frequent service up to par with other parts of the Bay and other parts of the country, and improves paratransit by improving the fixed route service
- Transit priority investments as outlined in VTA’s Speed and Reliability program to make buses and light rail faster and more reliable, more cost-effective, and to move more people for the money.
I urge the San José City Council to prioritize these investments in its recommendations to the VTA board and use at least 80% of the funding on these priorities.
At a time when federal funding for transit is getting eviscerated and affordability is a priority for many San Jose residents, please focus these investments where they can be the most uniquely beneficial, on the Visionary Network and Transit Priority investments to bring VTA service to the level that San Jose residents deserve and depend on.
Thank you.
Kathryn Hedges
San Jose , California 95112
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
Fw: San Jose City Council Comments on VTA local expenditure plan (Agenda 5.1) From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 4/14/2026 8:25 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
th 200 E. Sant
a Clara St.,Tower 14 Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax: 408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Savita Nataraj
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:16 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: San Jose City Council Comments on VTA local expenditure plan (Agenda 5.1) [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear San Jose City Coucilmembers,
My name is Savita Nataraj and as a San Josean resident for 30 years , I want VTA to be faster and more reliable. First of all , thank you ve1y much for considering the expenditure plan for Santa Clara County's discretionary portion of the Connect Bay Area ballot measure.
The measure as a whole is critically important for the city ; without it, Caltrain and BART service would be cut drastically leading to crippling increases in traffic congestion , and adding grave risk to the hope of extending BART to San Jose if BART service is greatly diminished.
In addition to the funds dedicated to Caltrain , and to BART from other parts of the region, the Connect Bay Area ballot measure would provide $264 million annually in "return to source" local funding – which has the potential to provide major improvements for Santa Clara County.
For local Santa Clara County investments, please prioritize investments that serve people who depend on transit, increase ridership, improve the cost-effectiveness of the transit system to serve more people per dollar, and make progress on climate and improving affordability for residents at a time of skyrocketing gas prices.
I strongly support strategies that VTA has developed that advance these goals:
- The Visionary Network to provide a network of frequent service up to par with other parts of the Bay and other parts of the country, and improves paratransit by improving the fixed route service
- Transit priority investments as outlined in VTA’s Speed and Reliability program to make buses and light rail faster and more reliable, more cost-effective, and to move more people for the money.
I urge the San José City Council to prioritize these investments in its recommendations to the VTA board and use at least 80% of the funding on these priorities.
At a time when federal funding for transit is getting eviscerated and affordability is a priority for many San Jose residents, please focus these investments where they can be the most uniquely beneficial, on the Visionary Network and Transit Priority investments to bring VTA service to the level that San Jose residents deserve and depend on.
Thank you for listening to my input.
Sincerely,
Savita Nataraj
Savita Nataraj
San Jose, California 95118
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Outlook
Fw: Transportation Policy Priorities for VTA Local Investment Plan - Item 5.1 Council 4/15 From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 4/14/2026 1:22 PM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Office of the City Clerk I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara St., Tower 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Main: 408-535-1260
Fax:408-292-6207
How is our service? Your feedback is appreciated!
From: Jordan Moldow
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 1:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Districtl <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <District4@sanjoseca .gov>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 < District [email protected]>
Subject: Transportation Policy Priorities for VTA Local Investment Plan - Item 5.1 Council 4/15 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Honorable City Council Members,
I am supportive of SB 63 and the Connect Bay Area citizens' initiative, and I'm glad to see the City engaging supportively with VTA. I support some elements of the staff recommendation. However, I urge the Council to amend the recommendation in key respects before approving it, and to defer final approval of the proposed roadway maintenance funding level until DOT provides the repaving plan referenced in the staff memorandum.
I ask the Council to:
1. Reduce the P.avement maintenance allocation from "at least 20%" to "no more than 12.5%."
2. Defer final aP.P.roval of the P.avement allocation level until DOT's full repaving plan is available and reviewed.
3. Reguire ComP.lete Streets outcomes as a condition of any roadway project funded by SB 63 proceeds - including transit signal priority, dedicated bus lanes, and active transportation improvements such as protected bike infrastructure and wider sidewalks.
4. Increase the transit service and rider experience share.
5. Explicitly exclude speculative private technology ventures — including but not limited to Glydways — and remove the Diridon-Airport Connector project in general from the list of top-priority capital projects for SB 63.
---
The pavement allocation is too high and should be conditioned. I believe the staff's recommended figure is too high, and I urge the Council to cap it at no more than 12.5%. Transit operations funding is extraordinarily scarce. SB 63 is a once-in-a-generation (perhaps once-in-a-lifetime) opportunity to invest in the operating budget of our transit system — precisely the kind of funding that is structurally unavailable through most other sources. Roads, by contrast, have multiple dedicated funding streams:
SB-1, VTA Measure B, Measure T (now expiring), and a variety of grant programs for surface transportation, Vision Zero, action transportation, and climate. Directing 20% of SB 63 discretionary revenues — 16.87% of all Santa Clara County SB 63 proceeds — to road repaving would exceed the combined share going to Caltrain operations and the Regional Transit Transformation Plan (15.38% combined). That proportion is difficult to justify.
The staff memo does not adequately address how much road damage VTA buses are actually causing.
VTA buses typically operate in a single lane of multi-lane arterials. On a six-lane road, buses may account for the majority of pavement degradation on the two outside lanes — but they are not meaningfully responsible for degradation of four inner lanes. Some of these corridors are also used by freight trucks, which also cause disproportionate road wear. The staff memo appears to implicitly treat all asphalt degradation as substantially attributable to bus operations. That is not a data-driven argument. Transit operations funding sources should not be asked to shoulder the full financial burden of repaving roads it only partially uses.
Furthermore, DOT has indicated that a full repaving plan with expected benefits will be released this month. The Council is being asked today to endorse a 20% funding floor before that plan is available.
At the same time, Councilmembers who sit on the V
TA Board have set clear expectations that, prior to
endorsement, they expect VTA to have a robust spending plan and plan to achieve self-sufficiency by the end of the 14-year measure. It would be consistent to expect the same from our DOT. I urge the Council not to lock in this 20% endorsement without first reviewing DOT's plan.
I note that the neighboring jurisdictions of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara have not raised road repaving as a priority in their discussions last week with VT
A about the Local Investment Plan. San José stands to
set a precedent here, and a 20% pavement floor would be a significant one.
If road funding is included, it must be conditioned on Complete Streets improvements for transit. Even at a reduced level (my proposal is no more than 12.5%), I would argue that any SB 63 funds directed to roadway maintenance should be required — not merely encouraged — to deliver Complete S
treets outcomes. "Maintenance" in its current form is a status-quo activity: repaving the same number of lanes, in the same configuration, with the same allocation of space between modes.
That is not appropriate for this funding source.
If SB 63 dollars touch a road, that project should deliver measurable improvements. Transit signal priority should be required, but that should be the floor, not the ceiling. There should be strong
incentives for SB 63 road projects to include dedicated bus lanes (an often overlooked Complete Street component) on busy 4+ lane arterials. Such streets should also include protected bike infrastructure, wide sidewalks, and reduced vehicle lane widths. Road repaving funded by a transit measure should make transit faster and safer, not merely restore the existing conditions that slow it down. We should be asking how we can use this money to reduce the long-term maintenance burden — not perpetuate it — by converting asphalt used by private vehicles into transit-priority and active transportation infrastructure.
The staff recommendation includes performance and accountability measures for transit service. It should include equivalent requirements for any roadway projects funded under this measure. It bears noting that this repaving funding will be available to all cities in the county, and your residents also ride transit and bike in these other cities. They deserve to have great streets county-wide, which is why these constraints should be a requirement, not just something DOT opts into.
Transit service and rider experience should receive more than 50%. The staff recommendation calls for "at least 50%" to improved transit service and rider experience (and the presentation slides reduce this to "~50%", without even a 50% floor). VTA data indicates that increases in service (via implementation of the Visionary Network) will produce the greatest jump in ridership, the greatest increase in fare revenue, and a meaningful decrease in cost-per-rider. Given how scarce operating funding is, and given that this is the core purpose of SB 63, I would encourage the Council to advocate for this share to be substantially higher than DOT's proposal.
I also support the proposal, raised in the group memorandum, for a free youth transit pass program.
Investments in youth ridership build long-term transit culture, reduce traffic congestion, and advance the City's equity goals.
I would also note that microtransit, in most cases, should not count toward the "improved transit service" category. Microtransit is typically high-cost-per-rider and low-ridership, and is often deployed as a substitute for fixed-route service cuts rather than a genuine expansion of mobility. SB 63's transit service funds should be directed toward increasing frequency and reliability of fixed-route service, where ridership gains and cost-per-rider improvements are demonstrably achievable.
SB 63 funds should not be used for unproven private technology ventures. SB 63 revenues should not be directed toward speculative technology projects with private companies — including Glydways, Zoox, Waymo, Uber, or similar ventures. This would be an inappropriate use of a transit operations measure approved by voters.
The Glydways airport connector, specifically, has been included in the staff memo's list of "transit supportive capital investments." I urge the Council not to endorse this. Unlike the other projects listed, an airport connector using an unproven, privately-developed system would create an entirely new and unknown class of ongoing operating expenses — the opposite of the efficiency and fiscal sustainability goals that VTA has committed to pursue. The Council should make clear, in its advocacy to VTA, that SB 63 funds belong in proven, scalable, publicly-operated transit infrastructure.
My concern extends beyond the Glydways technology: even if this project were reimagined as a conventional rail or bus guideway, I am skeptical it represents the best use of SB 63 funds, given the availability of other potential capital funding sources for major infrastructure projects. I do want a mass transit connection between SJC and Diridon, but not as a top funding priority for SB 63. ---
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to San José taking an ambitious and principled position in these negotiations.
Respectfully,
Jordan Moldow (speaking on his own behalf)
District 3, Japantown
Source: VTA’s Path to the Future Workshop
Modernization+ Visionary Network= KPI Improvements
Modernize how service is delivered as we expand how much service is delivered Modernization Visionary Network Service
-7% +88% +41% +69% -17%
Unit Service Total Ridership Cost per
Cost Level Cost Passenger
-3% +61% +16% +59% -32%
Unit Service Total Ridership Cost per
Cost Level Cost Passenger
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.