The federal transportation bill passed by the House on July 29, contains a section -- inserted at the request of U.S. Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose -- that would prevent the Federal Transportation Administration from applying new rules that would have lowered the cost-effectiveness rating of the project and made it an even lower priority for federal funding. Congressman Mike Honda of California served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in El Salvador in the 1960's.
Action by Honda saves BART from feds again
Action by Honda saves BART from feds again
By Timothy Roberts
SILICON VALLEY/SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET Aug. 7, 2005
The proposed BART extension from Fremont to San Jose and Santa Clara has escaped another attempt by federal transit officials to derail funding for the 16-mile $4.1 billion project.
The federal transportation bill passed by the House on July 29, contains a section -- inserted at the request of U.S. Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose -- that would prevent the Federal Transportation Administration from applying new rules that would have lowered the cost-effectiveness rating of the project and made it an even lower priority for federal funding.
Story continues below ? advertisement
"The exemption gives new momentum to a project that we all know is critical to maintaining the high quality of life in our region," Mr. Honda said in a statement.
Skeptics like Eugene Bradley, the founder of the VTA Riders Union, see it differently.
"This is just an attempt to makes sure funding for this boondoggle will come through," he said.
The new rules are an apparent attempt by the Bush administration to contain spending by weeding out the least cost-effective transportation projects.
But local BART boosters say it was unfair to apply new rules to the BART project which has been in the works since 2000, when voters overwhelmingly approved a half-cent sales tax to pay for more than half of the project's cost. Since then, local elected officials and the representatives of business groups have assiduously pursued the federal share of the cost, which comes to $494 million.
The Valley Transportation Authority, which is designing and would build the project, is gearing up a campaign to convince voters to support another half-cent sales tax to make up for the drop in sales tax revenue during the economic downturn.
The FTA has always taken a dim view of the project. In February, the agency recommended against funding the BART extension, saying it wasn't cost-effective. It also said the cost of project had risen from $4.1 billion to $6.2 billion. The agency has been signaling its concerns since 2002 when it raised questions about the demand for the service.
But BART supporters point out that local taxpayers are willing to foot more than half the bill, that the BART line is an investment for the future and that new housing and offices will spring up along the line that will create further demand for public transportation.
Most galling to BART supporters is that the FTA opposition is coming long after public officials promised and voters approved the project.
"The FTA staff came forward with some policies not set by Congress that make it more difficult for high-cost areas like California and Silicon Valley to receive funding," said Carl Guardino, the president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who led the 2000 campaign to get voter support for the transit project. Federal funding guidelines often fail to take into account the high cost of living here, Mr. Guardino said.
"The bill says that projects like BART that were already in the process would not be negatively affected by this much later policy adopted by the FTA," he said.
Earlier this year, Mr. Honda negotiated an agreement with the FTA that apportioned the federal funding to only part of the 16-mile line, a segment most likely to meet FTA ridership demands.
In the new $286.4 billion federal transportation bill, Mr. Honda inserted 14 lines in a 321-page bill that exempt BART, and three other projects from new rules that establish a cost-effectivness rating for projects. The rating is a complex factor based on the cost of providing travel time savings. Only projects costing less than $20 per hour saved would be funded.
Neither the VTA nor the FTA have calculated the cost for the BART extension, but the VTA and other BART supporters doubted that BART could meet that test.
The biggest objection is that the emphasis on cost-effectiveness de-emphasizes the contribution that BART would make to improved land use, the environment and housing, said Kurt Evans, the VTA's government affairs manager.
"Congressman Honda has ensured that the merits will be based on evaluating the whole project," he said. "No one thing would trump everything else."
