Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Chairperson McNeely in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

Members Present
Glenn Goepfert
Geoff Goodfellow
Joseph Kott
Mike McNeely
Michael Murdter
Jim Porter
Julie Render
Ben Tripousis
Jack Witthaus

Members Absent
Scott Alman
David Bischoff
Mintze Cheng
John Cherbone
John Curtis
Robert Kass
Cathy Lazarus
Rick Smelser

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of April 10, 2003

M/S/C (Tripousis/Goodfellow) to approve the Minutes of April 10, 2003.

Summary Minutes of November 13, 2003

M/S/C (Tripousis/Goodfellow) to receive and file the Summary Minutes of November 13, 2003.

Committee Staff Report

The Committee congratulated Carolyn Gonot on her new position as VTA Chief Development Officer.

Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner, distributed the following documents entitled Local Streets and County Roads Program 2003 Planning Call for Projects Draft Scores and Technical Advisory Committee Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee Agenda.   She reported that due to the timing and number of projects, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee has not met to discuss the draft scores.  She recommended that TAC review the Local Streets and County Roads Program 2003 Planning Call for Projects Draft Scores and invited TAC to attend the Special Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee Meeting to discuss the draft scores on Monday, January 12, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., 3331 North First Street, Room B-104. Ms. Rensi informed TAC Members to send their comments with their CIP Subcommittee representative if they are unable to attend the meeting.

Frank Sharpless, Transportation Policy & Program Manager, reported that early last year VTA Board of Directors formed an Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee, made up of members of the Board of Directors, who met over the course of a year.   In June/July 2003, the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee came forward with a set of 19 recommendations to address VTAs current financial situation.   Mr. Sharpless reported that the one thing that not addressed at the time was a strategy for developing a new source of revenue as well as the fact that VTA did not have court determination regarding advancing future Measure A bus/light rail operations coming into the present to keep the current system afloat.  

Mr. Sharpless reported that when the Board of Directors accepted and approved the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committees recommendations and approved the budget for the current fiscal year, the Board of Directors directed the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee to reconvene and attempt to come up with a recommendation for a new financial strategy.   Mr. Sharpless reported that a strategy was developed and presented to the Board of Directors at their Workshop Meeting in November 2003.  He noted that the Board of Directors discussed the strategy and asked that the strategy be revisited before taking it through the approval process in order to come up with some perimeters regarding the advancement of the Measure A money for current operations, the process for returning some of all of that money to that account, a determination regarding the advisory ballot measure as well as a process for identifying priority projects.  

Mr. Sharpless reported that the Board Memorandum regarding the Financial Stability Strategy went to the VTA Standing Committees in December 2003 and was forwarded to the Board of Directors for approval at the January 8, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting.    He noted that the memorandum contained a request in the near term to have VTA prioritize transportation projects and improvements at a March 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting.  Prior to that there is a request for the cities to individually prioritize transportation projects within its jurisdiction as a part of the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 process. 

Ms. Gonot reported that staff will take a list of all the projects submitted to the Board of Directors January 30, 2004 Workshop Meeting.   Staff will return to the February 27, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting with proposed allocations to each of the program areas.  She also noted that staff will return to the March 19, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting with draft recommendations for the projects that fit within the allocations.   Ms. Gonot noted that staff will present a final recommendation to the Board of Directors at their April 23, 2004 Workshop Meeting.  She noted that the question is do the cities want to have time to take another look at all of the projects and do they have the desire to prioritize expressways versus local streets and roads projects versus highway projects?

Member Witthaus commented that he did not understand the rationale for prioritizing categories against each other if the categories are going to exist within VTP 2030.    He stated that from his perspective, there are different categories of projects and each should be individually prioritized and different funding for each.  Chairperson McNeely referred to the roadways, local streets and roads, and expressways and noted that has been done as part of the submittal to the VTP 2030 Local Streets and Roads. 

Ms. Gonot noted her recommendation would be to keep the projects at the list level.   She stated that staff would send out a letter stating how the cities have been involved in the process so far and ask if there are any additional projects to be considered.  She indicated a preference not to have the cities cross-prioritize the projects.

On order of Chairperson McNeely, there being no objection, the Committee Staff Report was received.

Chairperson's Report

Chairperson McNeely, again, congratulated Ms. Gonot on her new position.

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GENERAL MANAGER

Nominating Committee Report for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for FY 2004

Chairperson McNeely reported that the Nominating Committee proposed the following slate of candidates:  Joseph Kott as Chairperson and Jim Porter as Vice Chairperson for FY 2004.

On order of Chairperson McNeely, there being no objection, the Nominating Committee Report for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for FY 2004 was received. 

Elect Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for FY 2004

Chairperson McNeely opened the nominations from the floor for the position of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.  

M/S/C (Goodfellow/Tripousis) to close the nominations and elect Vice Chairperson  Kott as Chairperson and Member Porter as Vice Chairperson for FY 2004. 

Chairperson McNeely relinquished his seat as Chairperson to newly-elected Chairperson Kott.

Amendment of Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws

Stephen Flynn, Sr. Management Analyst, reported that several months ago it was identified that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) bylaws needed to be reviewed.  In the process of reviewing the CAC bylaws, staff determined that they would review all of the advisory committee bylaws, which has not been done for over five years.  What staff endeavored to do was to improve clarity, promote consistency between all of the advisory committees, and where needed, improve meeting efficiency.

Mr. Flynn directed attention to the proposed changes contained in the TAC bylaws, Page 2, Section 3.1 Membership.  He noted the most significant change is converting the existing VTA seat to an Ex-Officio seat, due to a conflict of interest.   As Ex-Officio, the VTA seat would not be counted towards a quorum or for voting purposes.

Member Goodfellow queried if there was any value to change the quorum requirement. Mr. Flynn reported he would verify with General Counsel and indicated that he does not believe the quorum could be changed, noting that it is defined in the Administrative Code as basically one more than half.

M/S/C (McNeely/Tripousis) to approve amending the Technical Advisory Committee bylaws. 

The Committee expressed concern regarding TAC Membership attendance and lack of a quorum.  Chairperson Kott and Member McNeely noted they would contact Members who are not attending meetings.

Clarification of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 1998) to Reflect Update of Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines (June 2003)

Ms. Gonot reported that staff completed updates to the Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), which affected the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (May 1998).  The following chapters of the TIA Guidelines will be clarified to reflect the changes with the 2003 Traffic LOS Analysis Guidelines: Chapter 5 - Analysis Methodologies for CMP Roadway Facilities and Chapter 10 Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

M/S/C (Goodfellow/Tripousis) to recommend the Board of Directors approve the following clarifications to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 1998) to be consistent with the traffic level of service analysis methods of the Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines update approved at the June 2003 VTA Board meeting: (1) use of average control delay and the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) methods for signalized intersections; (2) use of HCM2000 density criteria with certain adjustments to reflect Santa Clara County conditions for freeways; and (3) use of HCM2000 methods for rural highways.

Draft Caltrain 2004-2023 Strategic Plan

Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA is one of three funding partners in the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) that operates the Caltrain commuter rail service between Gilroy and San Francisco.   He noted that VTA has three members of the nine member Caltrain Joint Powers Board.  There are three members from San Francisco County, three from San Mateo County and three from Santa Clara County.  The current Chairperson is John McLemore, VTA Board Member, VTA Alternate Board Member Ken Yeager from San Jose City Council, and Don Gage, VTA Board Chairperson and County of Santa Clara Supervisor.

Mr. Sharpless reported that Caltrain has recently prepared a Draft 2004-2023 Strategic Plan to serve as a 20-year blueprint and guideline for the future.   Caltrain has developed a series of scenarios with changing assumptions regarding funding and service level. 

Mr. Sharpless reported that VTA asked Caltrain staff to make a presentation at todays Technical Advisory Committee and at the Policy Advisory Committee, which will be held on January 15, 2004.  Caltrain staff will also present a summary of the Caltrain Strategic Plan at the Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee Meeting of January 15, 2004 and the Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee Meeting of January 22, 2004.  The TP&O and A&F Committees will be considering a set of VTA recommendations regarding the Caltrain Strategic Plan and would be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their February 5, 2004 Meeting.

Mr. Sharpless directed attention to the Board Memorandum, Page 2, Paragraph 2, and noted that the public meeting to be held in Santa Clara County is at 6:30 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m.

Ian McAvoy, Caltrain Staff, reported that the last time Caltrain tried to develop a Strategic Plan was in 1999.  He noted that two key milestones came out of the Plan.  The first one was the introduction of the electrification program for Caltrain and the second one was a refocus on making sure that Caltrain would be fixed up over the next ten years.

Mr. McAvoy reported that Caltrain would be providing the presentation to a number of groups in San Mateo County, noting that San Francisco Transportation Authority has received a similar presentation.

Mr. McAvoy noted that one of the things that has been a struggle with Caltrain is when you have three organizations on the Joint Powers Board, it is very difficult to get a common ground/vision. 

Mr. McAvoy directed attention to the document distributed entitled Presentation of the Draft Caltrain Strategic Plan, Presentation to Joint Powers Board December 4, 2003.  He provided an overview of the Draft Caltrain Strategic Plan, highlighting the Guiding Principles and the Plan Approach, which introduced the following four scenarios:  1) No Build, 2) Moderate Growth, 3) Enhanced, and 4) Build-Out.  Mr. McAvoy noted that the first scenario, No Build, is now called Status Quo.

Mr. McAvoy reported that each one of the scenarios is tied into ridership project growth.  At present, Caltrain carries about 29,000 to 30,000 riders per day.  Ridership has dropped mainly due to the downturn of jobs in South County.  If Caltrain were to embark on the Status Quo approach (Scenario 1), it is believed that 20 years from now, Caltrain could add almost 10,000 people per day to the Caltrain system.

Mr. McAvoy directed attention to Scenario 2: Moderate Growth and noted it really starts to grow the Caltrain system.  At present, Caltrain runs 76 trains per day.  If Caltrain goes to 100 trains per day, Caltrain could attract up to 60,000 average weekday passengers.  The cost, including the electrification program, some time in the next 20 years, would cost $2 billion.  Caltrain is looking at pay as you go and identifies a $200 million capital deficit.

Mr. McAvoy directed attention to Scenario 3: Enhanced and noted it is the one that Caltrain wants to provide, the optimization of Caltrain and the highest quality of frequent rail service.  He noted that Caltrain could add almost another 10,000 people on top of  Scenario 2.  The cost would be $2.5 billion and there would be deficit of a half of billion dollars over a 20-year period.

Mr. McAvoy directed attention to Scenario 4: Build-Out and noted you can pretty much vision a brand new Caltrain.  He noted that Scenario 4 has potential California high-speed rail bond funds.

Mr. McAvoy directed attention to the Policy Considerations and provided an overview.  He referred to the Continuum or Option choice and asked do we want to chose the Continuum and move forward and do things where we can afford them or do we want to lock into an Option and then challenge the organizations.   He noted that one of the things that Caltrain struggles with is this annual way of doing business. To do things right and to not focus all the efforts on a year-to-year budget, there needs to be a dedicated funding source.

Mr. McAvoy referred to Caltrains long-range plans and noted that Caltrain supports electrification.  However, the money to pay for electrification, to construct electrification is not available in the next few years.  If Caltrain wants to increase levels of service, it cannot do it on the existing system; Caltrain needs to optimize the system.  He noted that it is not the number of trains per day that really counts, it is the number of trains per hour.

Mr. McAvoy reported that the vision of Caltrain is achievable and noted that there are a considerable amount of questions to be addressed.  He is predicting that VTAs comments to Caltrain will answer the questions.  Caltrain believes that flexibility is the biggest key to the success of Caltrain going forward.

Mr. McAvoy provided a report on Caltrains next steps and schedule.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Draft Caltrain 2004 2023 Strategic Plan was discussed. 

Amendment to Tier 1 Project River Oaks Bridge

Celia Chung, Senior Transportation Planner, and Amin Surani, Senior Transportation Engineer, reported that VTA is requesting an additional allocation above the original allocation to the River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge.  The original allocation from the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) was $250,000.  She reported the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara had also sent letters of support for the request.  Two issues have caused the cost to increase that would not be covered by the $1 million Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant secured two years ago. 

Ms. Chung noted that with the construction of the bridge, it was originally envisioned that there would be cranes parked on the side of the bridge away from the creek area.  It has been found that the cranes need to be brought in on one of the service paths on the side of the levy.   Also, the piling would trigger some environmental procedures required by the federal funding.  VTA is hoping to begin construction this summer, but if

VTA misses the window, construction would be delayed until Summer 2005, in which case the federal funds would expire.  VTA is doing all it can to ensure deadlines will be met and funds will not expire.

M/S/C (McNeely/Tripousis) to review and discuss the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) allocation to the River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge (Tier 1 Bicycle project) from $250,000 to $700,000 was reviewed and discussed. 

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2003

Mr. Surani directed attention to the document entitled Progress Summary Sheet Funds Expiring in 2004.   He noted that all of the projects are in the Green Category (Project is progressing smoothly), except for the River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Project, which is in the Yellow Category (Projects at the risk of losing funds due to delivery difficulties).  The River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Project is under the design phase and longer time needed for environmental work might delay the funding obligation.    

Mr. Surani reported from the project level the projects are doing fine, but the big picture is that the state may not have money for the projects.   If so, the projects will have to wait until the money comes in and as part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development process, the projects may be delayed.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October December 2003 was received and filed.

OTHER

Announcements

Ms. Gonot noted that the Board of Directors would be adopting the 2004 STIP at their meeting tonight and queried if there were any comments.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Committee adjourned at 2:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors