In the hopes of luring federal money, VTA's board of directors approved new funding to design and engineer the controversial project Thursday morning. In the past, the Federal Transit Administration hasn't been impressed with the plan, dubbing it 'Not Recommended.' Critics lament the project's $4.7 billion expense, warning that BART's typical cost overruns will gobble up funding for bus routes and light rail countywide. At Thursday's meeting, one opponent held up a neon pink sign reading, in part, 'STOP BART.'

"It's a dollars-and-cents issue," said Doug McNea, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association. "There just aren't enough dollars to bring BART to San Jose ... Put BART on hold."

But a San-Jose-bound BART train has powerful appeal for some Silicon Valley boosters.

"It's an opportunity for greatness in Silicon Valley," said Steve Glickman of the Policy Advisory Committee. "And greatness has its cost."

Miguel Acosta, a security guard who splits his time between Gilroy, Mountain View and Hayward, smiled at the news as he waited for a bus Thursday night at Gilroy's Caltrain stop. He's used to eight-hour round trips to Hayward, he says, and he's tired of transferring from one system to another.

"It should have been done a long time ago," he said. "Gilroy has so many immigrants, and many can't drive. They need access to better-paying jobs - and the freedom to get to Oakland or Berkeley. That kind of immediate access is freedom, and you can't put a price on it."

The board threw its support behind the $135 million expense with a 9 to 2 vote. Only two members, county supervisor Liz Kniss and Mountain View's Greg Perry, shunned the proposal. County supervisor Don Gage, regarded by project opponents as a potential swing vote, voted yes, despite some misgivings.

"I can't say that I'm an advocate of BART," Gage said, "but I voted the way I did because the engineering will get us the information to make a decision as to whether to move forward ... If we don't have that, we're making the decision in the blind."

General manager Michael Burns said the expense was well worth it: the project is more likely to snag federal funding in 2008 with firmer numbers and plans. Deferring the work would cost more than $100 million, he claimed, and the work won't stale if the project has to be shelved, awaiting funding. But critics charge that the expenditure means VTA will have to go, hat in hand, to county taxpayers for support.

"We know we don't have the money," said Perry, who was dubious of Burns' claim that the engineering and design would balloon in cost, if delayed. "We don't know how we're going to get the money. But we're going to bet ... dollars that the money's going to come."

Measure A, the half-cent sales tax passed in 2000, is supposed to shoulder more than half the project's expense. Burns said BART expenditures wouldn't jeopardize other Measure A transit projects, but Gage said if massive project's price creeps higher, and federal funders don't bite, South County projects could be in peril. State and federal funding are needed to provide more than $1 billion for the extension's success.

"If in two years, [federal funding] doesn't happen, the board will be faced with a difficult decision," Gage said. "It's going to end up costing us money ... and if you don't have enough money to do BART, and you take money and use it on BART, you won't have the money for smaller cities' projects."

Luckily, one such project is already underway: VTA directors gave the nod to $10 million more to lay a second set of Caltrain tracks serving Gilroy. Currently, a single set of tracks services Gilroy's Caltrain station. That means that only one train can run at a time - outbound by morning, inbound by night. The money pays for design services and the necessary relocation of Verizon/MCI, Qwest and Sprint facilities. Gage said the funding should accelerate the project, previously due for completion in more than 20 years.

Emily Alpert covers public safety issues for The

Dispatch. She can be reached at 847-7158, or at ealpert@gilroydispatch.com.

POST A COMMENT

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.