Related Links

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

Members Present
John Curtis
Don Dey
Glenn Goepfert
Joan Jenkins
Robert Kass
Jim Lightbody, Ex-Officio
Mike McNeely
Michael Murdter
Jim Porter, Vice Chairperson
Marvin Rose
Ben Tripousis
Steve Yoshino

Members Absent
David Bischoff
Mintze Cheng
John Cherbone
Joseph Kott, Chairperson
Gordon Siebert

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of March 11, 2004

M/S/C (McNeely/Tripousis) to approve the Minutes of March 11, 2004.

Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.

Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson's Report.

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

Proposed Fare Modification

David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, reported that staff previously provided a presentation outlining the proposed fare increase and the relationship of the Fare Policy adopted by VTA Board of Directors in December 2003.   Since that time, staff held community meetings in the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Gilroy.  Mr. Sausjord distributed the document entitled Summary of Comments Received Regarding Proposed Fare Changes and provided a brief overview.

Mr. Sausjord noted that staff made a change to the fixed route fares and a proposed tweaking of the paratransit fares, which are reflected in reports being forwarded to the VTA Board Standing Committees the week of April 12, 2004.  He noted that staff modified the proposed fare for the senior/disabled monthly pass from $27.50 to $26.00, which is within the range specified by the Fare Policy.  He referred to the paratransit service area surcharge for the South County area that was deferred by the Board of Directors in 2003, and noted that staff proposes to extend the deferral in the South County area for an additional year pending a study of the whole paratransit service model in the South County area.         

Member Kass took his seat at 1:44 p.m.

Mr. Sausjord noted that the Proposed Fare Modification is being presented to VTA Advisory and Standing Committees for discussion in April 2004, to the Standing Committees in May 2004 for recommendation of adoption of a recommended fare change, and forwarded for adoption at the June 3, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting, with implementation planned for January 2005.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed transit and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) fare modifications for implementation January 1, 2005. 

Final Staff Recommendations for VTP 2030 Program Allocations and Project Priorities

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that the Final Staff Recommendations for the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 Program Allocations and Project Priorities contained in the Agenda Packet is the updated list presented at the March 19, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting and April 1, 2004 Board of Directors Meeting.

Mr. Augenstein provided a report, highlighting: 1) an overview of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/VTP 2030 processes and 2) public outreach and comment period.

Mr. Augenstein provided an update on the following ten VTP 2030 Program Areas: 1) Transit Program, 2) Highway Program, 3) Expressway Program, 4) Local Streets & County Roads Program, 5) Transportation Systems Operations & Management Program, 6) Bicycles, 7) Sound Mitigation, 8) Landscaping & Graffiti Removal, 9) Pavement Management, and 10) Livable Communities & Pedestrian Program.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Transit Program and noted the program covers a 30-year period.  He noted that all of the Measure A Transit Projects will go into the fiscally-constrained part of the RTP, with the exception of a second phase of the new rail corridors and the Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs).  The ZEBs could actually be funded with non-Measure A revenues.  Mr. Augenstein noted that VTA is currently engaged in a demonstration project in which VTA is purchasing three hydrogen fuel-cell buses.   Over the next year or so, VTA will test the fuel-cell buses and evaluate the technology.  In about a year and a half, VTA will reassess the ZEB program.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Highway Program and noted a slight variation not contained in the Agenda Packet.  He reported that VTA received refined construction costs and has talked with various Member Agencies to restate some of the projects.  He noted that a couple of projects have been separated into two pieces, an environmental piece of the project that goes above the line and a construction piece left below the line.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Local Streets and County Roads Program and noted that a project was added to Los Altos Hills.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Bicycle Program and noted that staff is currently working on developing a Tier 2 list of projects and VTA will try to fit the project list into the RTP.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Transportation Systems Operations & Management Program and noted that staff is in the process of developing a project list for the program.

Mr. Augenstein referred to the Landscape Restoration and Graffiti Removal Program and noted that VTA has not identified funds for the program, but in the interim, is looking for funds.

Mr. Augenstein noted that the final staff recommendations for the VTP 2030 Program Allocations and Project Priorities will be forwarded to the April 23, 2004 Board of Directors Workshop Meeting for adoption.  A draft plan of VTP 2030 will be developed in July 2004 and forwarded to all VTA Committees and forwarded to the August 2004 Board of Directors Meeting for adoption.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the final staff recommendations for the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) program allocations and project priorities.  

Proposed Process and Criteria for Programming Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds to Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects in 2005/06 and 2006/07

Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) anticipates programming some of the funds expected from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization in 2005/06 and 2006/07 for local streets and roads rehabilitation and reconstruction.  VTA needs to develop a process and criteria for programming Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to local streets and roads rehabilitation projects. 

Ms. Rensi reported that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee has established a task force to review and comment on the proposal criteria.  Both the CIP Subcommittee and task force have met to discuss the proposal criteria.  Ms. Rensi distributed a document entitled Attachment A, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Programming Process and Criteria, noting that the document contained two alternatives developed by the task force.  She noted that Member Murdter, representing the County of Santa Clara, had a third alternative.

Ms. Rensi reported that VTA received an estimated allocation amount of $16 million for the two years.  VTA has been granted an additional month to submit applications to MTC, which is now August 30, 2004. 

Ms. Rensi directed attention to the Board Memorandum, Page 3 of 3, and noted that federally and regionally mandated criteria projects must meet to be eligible for funding, noting that they are the non-negotiables.

Ms. Rensi referred to Attachment A, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Programming Process and Criteria, Page A1 of 2, and provided a report, highlighting: 1) Goal, 2) Project Screening Criteria, and 3) Other Program Features.

Member McNeely noted Caltrans might have a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) project through the middle of Milpitas, but the streets are not MTS routes.   Ms. Rensi noted that Caltrans is not eligible.   Member McNeely queried if Milpitas has to use the money on a Caltrans route.  Ms. Rensi indicated no, not unless Milpitas signs an agreement with Caltrans.

Ms. Rensi referred to Attachment A Other Program Features, pavement and non-pavement expenses are eligible, and noted that the task force had a concern that maybe non-pavement expenses should be restricted.  She referred to the pavement management program and noted that there was some concern that a signal project could be submitted under the guise of a rehabilitation project.  So, there would be a job that was about 10 percent actual pavement and 90 percent signal.

Member Dey noted that one of the concerns is why go and refresh all of the pavement while there are other things along the corridor that are in disarray.  He noted that there should be a limitation indicating that a major portion needs to be spent on pavement; incidentals can cover a certain amount.

Member Murdter asked Ms. Rensi if what she described was possible under the criteria of the program as a way to do a signal project and be in complete compliance with all the eligibility criteria.   Ms. Rensi noted that you could; whether it would get by us or not would depend on how detailed the budget submitted and whether Caltrans conducted an inspection. 

Member Curtis asked Ms. Rensi if her earlier statement was meant to exclude sidewalks from the incidentals or to include the sidewalks.  Ms. Rensi noted that the sidewalks are included, but are not included in the current pavement management program.  She noted that the task force previously came up with the language that non-pavement should be incidental to the pavement job, but the task force did not specify a limit.  Member Curtis noted placing some kind of a limit on the non-pavement expenses might be useful, at least as far as rating the application.

Member Murdter noted the collective intention is to require that the primary purpose of the project is pavement rehabilitation, which will leave some leeway, yet achieves the intent that it clearly excludes standalone projects that have little or nothing to do with pavement.

Member Kass noted the agreement with the eligibility requirements, if VTA staff can come up with a system with a scoring criteria wherein the outcome is basically the same as Measure B and used in a similar way, except it is applicable to arterials or MTS.  Anybody who does not have any of those gets kicked back into the pot.

The Committee discussed the project screening criteria and recommended that the average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on the roadway remain between 0 and 70 in 2006/07.   

Member Kass left the meeting at 2:33 p.m.

Ms. Rensi reported that the task force came up with two alternatives and directed attention to Attachment A, Page A2 of 2, Project Scoring Criteria, and provided a report, on Option #1: Need Based Target.   Ms. Rensi reported that in 2003 the cities participated in a region-wide Needs Survey and as a result of the survey, staff has a couple of different sets of numbers estimating everyones 25-year needs for reconstructing their existing system.  She directed attention to the spreadsheet entitled Total Needs, and provided an overview.  She noted that the idea behind the spreadsheet is that there is a needs projection for the County of Santa Clara and for every city for the next 25 years, so why not have as a target for this cycle each cities percentage of that need over the next 25 years.   The spreadsheet lists alternates for Option #1.  Ms. Rensi referred to the third column of the spreadsheet entitled % of Total VTA and noted that it comes closest to approximating the Measure B formula.

Member Murdter expressed concern regarding the funding of $4 million for the County of Santa Clara Montague Expressway Project.

Ms. Rensi directed attention to Option #2: PCI Based Scoring System and provided an overview.

Member Murdter noted that the third option is allocating half of the pot ($8 million) based on Option 1 and the other half of the pot ($8 million) on the competitive scoring system.

Member McNeely recommended avoiding Option #2: PCI Based Scoring System, noting that it is unpredictable.

Ms. Rensi noted that based upon Committee discussion, it looks like the Committee has determined that they want some variant of Option #1: Need Based Target, noting the debate being is it based on Column 1 - % of Total MTC, Column 2 - % of Total Arterials & Collectors, Column 3 - % of Total VTA, listed on the Total Needs spreadsheet, or some variant to those that will approximate the Measure B formula.  She noted that it would probably have to be something artificial like an agreement to do a particular project, suggesting that the project be Montague Expressway.

           Ms. Rensi recommended having a $150,000 floor.

Member Yoshino recommended that the Committee go Need Based Target, noting that there is a preference of some to do the % of Total Arterials & Collectors and that there is a preference also for the Measure B formula, which he thinks is more supportive of the Countys need of $4 million.  He recommended that those two alternatives be reviewed.

Member Tripousis suggested rather than looking at three potential scenarios, that a realistic scenario be crafted with allocations based on the Need Based Target.    He noted that there was not enough information available to support any of the scenarios provided.

Mr. Augenstein said staff will develop a scenario for TAC to consider and the scenario will be e-mailed to the TAC for their review.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed process and criteria for programming Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to local streets and roads rehabilitation projects in 2005/06 and 2006/07. 

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2002-03

Stephen Flynn, Senior Management Analyst, reported that the Joint Powers Agreement governing the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that an independent audit of CMPs financial records be done every year.   The audit of CMPs financial records was performed by the firm of Macias, Gini & Company LLP (MGC).  Upon completion of the audit, MGC gave the CMP an unqualified report, indicating that, in their opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material aspects, the respective financial position of the CMP for Fiscal 2003.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2002-03 was received and filed. 

FY 04-05 Congestion Management Program Draft Work Program and Amended Budget

Mr. Flynn reported that in June 2001, the first Member Agency Fee increase was approved by VTA Board of Directors for the CMP, noting that the fee was the first one in 11 years.   In June 2003, the Board of Directors adopted their first biannual budget, which included the approval of the current CMP Budget and the Budget for Fiscal 2005.  However, due to significant condition changes, staff felt it was best to revisit the Budget and Work Program and make modifications where necessary.

Mr. Flynn reported that some of the major issues encountered were the projected loss of Programmed Project Monitoring funds.  As mentioned earlier, Programmed Project Monitoring (PPM) funds will probably be available in Fiscal 2007/08.  He indicated that adjustments were made where possible and noted the staff proposed minor modifications reflected in the draft FY 04-05 CMP Work Program for the upcoming year.   Mr. Flynn also noted that the draft Work Program also proposes continued development of four highway corridor studies and three gateway studies.   He noted the planned deletion of two CMP positions within the current budget.

Upon query of Member Jenkins, Mr. Flynn noted that the scheduled dues increase for FY 04-05 is not being deferred again.   He noted that the Member Agency fees indicated for the upcoming year are those originally scheduled for the current year (FY 03-04). 

Members Jenkins and Rose expressed concern regarding the Member Agency Fees, noting that their respective cities have made budget cuts and cannot afford an increase in Member Agency Fees.

Member McNeely queried about the amount of the Member Agency Fees for each city for this year compared to last year.   Mr. Flynn directed attention to the document entitled Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program (As a Component of the Development and Congestion Management Division), Strategic Six-
Year Financial Plan, FY 04-05 through FY 09-10, Page 2 of 8, Member Agency Fees, and noted that the $2,174,000 for FY 04-05 is the amount originally scheduled for the current year (Fiscal 03-04) and that the $1,783,000 for the current year (FY 03-04) is $2,174,000 less 18 percent.

Member McNeely queried about the programs that would be affected.  Mr. Flynn noted that staff could go back and identify the mandated programs versus the non-mandated programs.  He directed attention to the Draft Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, Work Program for Fiscal Year 2004-05, Page 2 of 18, Work Program: Introduction, Items 1-15, and noted the items that are mandated and non-mandated.

Member Murdter left his seat at 3:17 p.m., the quorum was lost,

and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Member Rose noted that TAC needs to have more information about the impact if VTA held the Member Agency Fee at zero, what would be the impact of a seven percent decrease.   Chris Augenstein noted that staff could develop some scenarios in order to modify the existing budget.

Member Murdter took his seat at 3:21 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Mr. Augenstein noted that TACs comments would be forwarded to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).

Mr. Augenstein asked staff to develop a couple of different scenarios and e-mail them to Member Jenkins.   Member Jenkins requested that every member receive the scenarios.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the FY 04-05 Congestion Management Program Draft Work Program and Amended Budget that will be distributed to Member Agencies for review and comment. 

FY 2004/05 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund (TFCA 40%) Project Allocations

Erin Chao, Transportation Planner III, reported that based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts revenue projection this year, Santa Clara County has about $2.3 million available in Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to the Competitive Projects and to the Tier 1 Bicycle Projects in the FY 2004/05 cycle.

Ms. Chao directed attention to Attachment A, Santa Clara County 2004/05 TFCA 40% Program, and noted that the project list was reviewed by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Scoring Subcommittee on March 23, 2004.   Three projects with the highest scores were selected from the Competitive Program and three projects were supplemented from the Tier 1 Bicycle Program.  

Ms. Chao reported that in August 2000, the VTA Board of Directors adopted a policy to set-aside half of the annual TFCA 40% allocation to Tier 1 Bicycle Projects in the Countywide Bicycle Plan.

Member Curtis left the meeting at 3:22 p.m., the quorum was lost,

and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole reviewed and commented on the recommendation to program $2.3 million in Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager (TFCA 40%) funds to the Competitive Projects and to the Tier 1 Bicycle Projects in the FY 2004/05 cycle. 

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January March 2004

Ms. Chao directed attention to the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report, Progress Summary Sheet Funds Expiring in 2004, and noted that all of the projects are in the Green category, which means the projects are not at risk of losing funds.   However, due to the current State budget, several State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects are being deferred to the later fiscal years.

Member McNeely directed attention to the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report, Page 13 of 53, Sponsor: City of Milpitas, Project Title: Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of UPRR (north of Montague Expwy.), and requested that the Manager Name reflect Mike McNeely instead of Arlene DeLeon.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January March 2004.  

Member Yoshino left the meeting at 3:05 p.m.

Countywide Bicycle Plan:   Draft Tier 2 Project List

Celia Chung, Senior Transportation Planner, distributed the following documents: 1) Attachment A - Tier 2 Projects submitted for VTP 2030/Countywide Plan update, 2) Attachment B Proposed Tier 2 Bike Projects, March 2004, 3) Attachment C Proposed Tier 2 Projects and Allocations, and 4) Proposed Tier 2 Projects and Allocations Based on Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) recommendations 4/7/04.

Ms. Chung referred to the draft Tier 2 Bicycle Project List and noted it is intended to be part of the overall VTP 2030 Bicycle Program allocation. She noted that MTC has committed $200 million in the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (T2030) over a  25-year period for a regional bicycle/pedestrian program and that Santa Clara Countys target share of the regional program was $50 million.    She noted that the Tier 1 Bicycle Project List has already been funded and that the Tier 2 Bicycle Project List would be the next list of projects to be in line for regional, state, and federal funding.

Ms. Chung reported that VTA did a Call for Projects in February 2004 and were due in March 2004.  The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) met on April 7, 2004, and reviewed the documents entitled Attachment A - Tier 2 Projects submitted for VTP 2030/Countywide Plan update, Attachment B Proposed Tier 2 Bike Projects, March 2004, and Attachment C Proposed Tier 2 Projects and Allocations.  She directed attention to the document entitled Proposed Tier 2 Projects and Allocations Based on BPAC recommendations 4/7/04.  The BPAC recommended eliminating three projects that were previously recommended for inclusion by staff and also recommended reviewing the project costs to see if any of the requested amounts of funding could be reduced. 

Member Dey queried about the reasoning for eliminating three projects that were previously recommended by staff.   Ms. Chung noted when VTA did the Call for Projects, VTA received $69 million worth of requests, so VTA had to try and trim the amount down to $50 million to meet the financially-constrained requirement.  She noted that BPAC recommended that the following three projects not be included:  1) Bike/Pedestrian grade-separated crossing of Highway 101 at San Antonio (year-round),  2) Sunnyvale Train Station North Side Access, and 3) Stanford Research Park Bike Lanes.    

Member Rose referred to the Sunnyvale Train Station North Side Access Project being eliminated and expressed concern about projects randomly be pulled without justification.   Ms. Chung noted that the Sunnyvale Train Station North Side Access Project would still be on the Project List.

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole reviewed and commented on the proposed Tier 2 Bicycle Project List for the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan/VTP 2030. 

OTHER

Announcements

There were no Announcements.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.

NOTE:    M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors