At San Jose City Council on Tuesday, Mayor Liccardo and current and past Caltrain board members (Raul Peralez and Ash Kalra) acknowledged that Caltrain was important to San Jose, and that they expected Caltrain to receive funding as part of the ballot measure.

The partial endorsement of Caltrain came as at least 18 Caltrain supporters sent letters, including an executive at one of the 100 startup companies in downtown San Jose, whose location choice is influenced by the availability of the Caltrain baby bullet schedule.

Carl Guardino, the CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said that Caltrain was a high priority for the Leadership Group, and the group’s allocation proposal included $900 Million for Caltrain, including $300 million for capacity improvements and $600 million for grade separations. This is less than the ask in the North/West County cities coalition (including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino) which includes $400 million for capacity improvements (what Caltrain asked for) and $900 million in grade separations (in the middle of the range of Caltrain’s ask.)

Mayor Liccardo acknowledged in his introduction, and Jim Ortbal, the head of San Jose’s department of transportation, noted in the staff report presentation that the numbers in the proposals were there to articulate priorities, and weren’t expected to be the actual amounts in the ballot measure.

The largest number, and the top priority for the City of San Jose was $1.8 billion in funding for local streets and roads. This is much higher than the proposed allocations in the Silicon Valley Leadership Group or $1Billion in North/West County city proposals – because San Jose faces a crisis in the condition of its pavement. Before the discussion of the tax, Council had a separate agenda item on the dire state of the city’s streets and roads, which face ballooning expenses as the conditions continue to deteriorate (see image). San Jose is also considering a local sales tax to fund part of the maintenance deficit.

The City Council’s vote included references to Mayor Liccardo’s ask for $1.65Billion in funding for transit services for the elderly, disabled, and transit-dependent, and Council Member Rocha’s ask for support of affordable housing near transit.

The $1.65 Billion proposed for the transit-dependent was an acknowledgement of active organizing by the Transit Justice alliance, a coalition of labor, social service, elderly, and ethnic organizations supporting greater investment in bus service and other services for low-income and transit-dependent groups. A number of elderly residents attended the meeting praising a program that provides bus passes to take seniors to lunch programs for nutrition and social support, as did very low-income residents receiving transit pass subsidies about to expire. Carl Guardino’s draft proposal from the Silicon Valley Leadership group included $300 Million to support services for the transit-dependent.

Close observers of Santa Clara County politics consider the $1.65 billion a pushback against the North/West County coalition’s preference for the non-Caltrain, non-BART transit spending to focus on commute congestion on 85 and 237 corridors, with no emphasis at all on serving low-income and transit-dependent riders.

The North/West county cities are seeking to cap BART spending at $1.2 billion; Guardino makes the case that at least $1.4 billion is needed to complete the project all the way to Santa Clara, and San Jose is asking for $1.5 billion.

Interestingly, the spending that Transportation Director Ortbal highlighted as most essential to the city’s economic growth was $650 million in freeway interchange overhauls helping driving commuters reach San Jose job centers. It’s not clear how these projects will be affected by new environmental rules that will require freeway projects mitigate increased driving with transit, transportation demand management to reduce driving, and tooling.

Council Member Herrera, who serves on the VTA board, spoke up in support of the FLEX last-mile pilot and other innovative services that will become possible over the lifetime of the ballot measure.

The inclusion of Rocha’s proposal supporting affordable housing near transit was potentially a major shift in the focus of the ballot measure. It received nominal support from all the other council members, although there are no specific proposals for what the money would be spent on, or what categories would be reduced to pay for housing.

For supporters of Caltrain, the acknowledgement without a number is somewhat disappointing, and represents a perspective San Jose will leave it to others to fight for robust improvements in Caltrain capacity.

Also, the stark split in rhetoric between support for BART and Caltrain as commute services for the well-off, and bus service for the people who are very poor and/or unable to drive, is disconcerting for transit supporters who want to see an integrated, connected transit system with much higher ridership, accessible to all, to achieve San Jose’s growth goals which depend on increasing density, as well as environmental goals.

Joel Ramos (Regional Planning Director at TransForm) and your blogger spoke in favor of an integrated transit system with rail services from BART and Caltrain, connecting with improved bus and light rail service, providing more robust support for the transit-dependent, and much more competitive services that lead to increased ridership.

Since the budget dollars proposed for “services for the transit-dependent” aren’t attached to any specific spending proposals (Council Member Peralez clarified that it included bus service), it’s hard to say whether it means anything specific about the types of service to be provided, other than a powerful political statement in support for lower-income transit users.

But one of the big weaknesses of Bay Area transit, compared to places around the world with excellent transit, is the assumption that rail and bus service are designed to serve separate and non-overlapping customer bases. So rail services are unaffordable to the working poor, who disproportionately drive or face excruciatingly long bus commutes instead of parallel speedier rail service; bus services have been lower in quality, reaching few people who have options to drive; and the system is not viewed as a network with feeder buses and connectors taking people from trunk lines to destinations. The campaign rhetoric about separate systems may not mean much if anything in terms of policy and projects, but doesn’t further goals of creating an excellent transit system serving more riders.

So if you think that Caltrain is important to San Jose, and you think Santa Clara County should have an excellent transit system accessible to all, then you can still send a letter to San Jose City Council.

After the submitted projects have been evaluated by VTA the San Jose City Council will come back and review its priorities (although the Council isn’t slated to vote; Mayor Liccardo argued that another vote would destabilize the VTA’s role and regional negotiations; and highlighted San Jose’s powerful position on the VTA board, with five voting members and two county supervisors whose district includes San Jose.

There will be more opportunities to follow the decision-making process, express your views, and stand up for Caltrain as part of an integrated, accessible transit system.