Published Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News 
   
Railroad BART

Bringing the line to San Jose was a done deal from the start; public `input'
was never to be taken seriously

   BY LINDA RAE HERMANN
   
   Last November, there was much debate and controversy over whether to
   extend a sales tax to bring BART from Fremont to San Jose. Mayor Ron
   Gonzales and the Valley Transportation Authority wanted BART approved
   ``now,'' and County Supervisors Alvarado and Beall wanted to wait for
   at least a year to study other transit options, evaluate the cost of
   BART, include community input and research other funding.
   
   They warned that pushing BART through without community input and a
   more thorough study was working backwards in the process that is
   usually followed in making transit decisions.
   
   I am participating in the Hostetter/Berryessa Working Community Group,
   which has the purpose of giving community input into the federal
   ``major investment study'' required for Santa Clara County to receive
   federal money for BART. In order to fulfill federal requirements of
   the study, the community and local stakeholders have to participate in
   making transit decisions, and all types of transit options have to be
   considered.
   
   Therefore, at the first working group meeting I attended, we were
   presented with 11 transit alternatives to connect BART from Fremont to
   downtown San Jose. Of the 11, only two included BART.
   
   As you can imagine, some of the other members and I began to wonder
   whether these nine alternatives were truly options or was the VTA just
   pretending they were. Was our time and energy being used to give
   influential opinions about all 11 alternatives, or were we being used
   to make it appear that the VTA had fulfilled the major investment
   study requirement for community input?
   
   Since I did not want to waste my time as window dressing for the VTA,
   I attended the meeting of the VTA Policy Advisory Board on June 29. I
   asked what would happen if the community groups and VTA chose an
   alternative that did not include BART.
   
   The legal counsel of the advisory board explained that the VTA would
   have to return to the voters for approval if BART did not remain the
   final choice of the investment study process.
   
   I decided to reconfirm my suspicions that the VTA was not seriously
   considering the nine alternatives to BART. At the July working group
   meeting, I said to staff that it appeared we had no other choice but
   BART, and it seemed we were just wasting our time by talking about any
   other alternatives since VTA did not plan go back to the voters with
   another plan.
   
   Silence, smiles, nodding heads, and a very quick changing of the
   subject followed my statement. There were no reassurances that our
   discussion of all the alternatives was authentic activity. I knew then
   that we were being used to fulfill the major investment study
   requirement, and we were not participating in a sincere inquiry into
   our recommendations and opinions.
   
   Supervisors Alvarado and Beall were right. The present process is
   backwards. My community working group is providing opinions about a
   predetermined decision, and our input on whether to have BART is a
   charade.
   
   If the major investment study had been introduced before the election,
   as would have been the most logical time sequence, it would have been
   a valid opportunity for community members and stakeholders to present
   valuable recommendations. It would also have resulted in a more
   thorough evaluation of environmental and construction impacts,
   ascertained the best alignment, and coordinated future transportation
   needs.
   
   One thing for sure, by following the more sensible time table, we
   would have discovered the high-tech boom was not going to last
   forever, which means less money and fewer commuters.
   
   If we had waited for a year, not having been in such a hurry for a
   quick fix, VTA would have been able to include these new factors in a
   more authentic and realistic process and been able to guarantee that
   BART was the best solution for our transportation needs.
   
   If VTA were going to the voters after instead of before the investment
   study, I would now feel invested as a community member and would
   believe that my opinion could make a difference. Instead, I feel like
   I am being used to make the process look good while having very little
   influence on its outcome.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Linda Rae Hermann is a trustee on the Berryessa Union School District
   Board of Trustees.
   
     © 2001 The Mercury News. The information you receive online from
     The Mercury News is protected by the copyright laws of the United
     States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing,
     retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material.