Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:35   p.m. by Chairperson Kott in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of October 14, 2004

M/S/C (Curtis/McNeely) to approve the Minutes of October 14, 2004.

Committee Staff Report

John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, reported that at the November 5, 2004 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting, VTA staff presented another version of the Measure A Expenditure Plan and how it translates into VTA’s operating scenario.   One of the scenarios includes the half cents sales tax that would be a new half cents sales tax, and it also provides priority order for the expenditures of the projects that are listed in Measure A in terms of when the projects would be funded.   He noted that the discussion would be taken up again at the December 9, 2004 Board of Directors’ Meeting at 9:00 a.m.  Mr. Ristow reported that the BART Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would also be discussed at the December 9, 2004 Board of Director’s Meeting.

Mr. Ristow reported that the issue regarding freeway litter control and landscape replacement would be discussed at the December 9, 2004 TAC Meeting.   Member Curtis noted that the Town of Los Gatos met with Caltrans and the City of Campbell regarding the issue.

Member Tripousis took his seat at 1:40 p.m.

Mr. Ristow reported that in the past Caltrans was a participating member of TAC and noted that VTA would be asking Caltrans to become a member (non-voting) once again.

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

Chairperson’s Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

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

Amendment of Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws

Stephen Flynn, Sr. Management Analyst, reported that the proposed changes are minor and directed attention to the bullet points contained in the Board Memorandum, on Page 2 of 2.  He noted that the first proposed change listed is adding Caltrans as an ex-officio member.  The other three proposed changes listed are basically clean-up of antiquated provisions.  The changes are reflected in Attachment A, Bylaws for the Technical Advisory Committee, §3.1 - Membership, §5.8 – Matters Not Listed On the Agenda Requiring Committee Action, §6.1 – Agenda Format and Content, and §6.3 – Agenda Preparation.

Upon query of Member Batra, Mr. Ristow noted that Caltrans has been contacted regarding their membership.   Mr. Ristow noted that Caltrans wants to send a deputy level participant to TAC. 

Mr. Flynn noted if TAC approves the changes, the revised bylaws would be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their approval at the December 9, 2004 Board of Directors’ Meeting.

Upon query of Member Curtis, Mr. Ristow noted that Caltrans would have one regular member on TAC.   He noted that if there was a particular item/issue that needed to be agendized, like for instance, the freeway litter control, then VTA could ask for additional Caltrans staff to attend.

Mr. Flynn noted that the actual change to the bylaws and to the VTA Administrative Code is to set it up similar to the TAC Membership where there would be an ex-officio member and an alternate ex-officio member.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Rose) to approve amending the Technical Advisory Committee bylaws, as indicated, including adding the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an ex-officio (non-voting) member. 

Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030)

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) is a draft document.   The VTP 2030 document is the long-range transportation plan for Santa Clara County and is an update to VTP 2020, which was adopted in December 2000.

Mr. Augenstein reported as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, VTA is required to prepare the document and to get it approved by the Board of Directors.   The VTP 2030 feeds into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is updated the same cycle that VTA updates their document, about every three to four years.  First and foremost, VTP 2030 is a plan and is intended to provide a planning framework for developing and delivering transportation projects and programs over the 25-year timeframe of the Plan. VTP 2030 outlines projects and programs targeted for implementation within the timeframe of the Plan, and it also identifies all the sources of funding that might be available and the amounts that might become available during the timeframe of the Plan.  VTP 2030 is not a programming document and it does not set project priorities or implementation schedules for projects contained in the Plan.

Mr. Augenstein again noted that VTP 2030 is an update to VTP 2020 and indicated that in VTP 2020, VTA called for a number of studies and programs to be developed.   In the four years since VTP 2020 was adopted, VTA staff, working with its Member Agencies, have completed many of the studies, such as corridor and gateway studies.  Projects developed from those studies have fed into the development of VTP 2030.  VTA also implemented programs, like the Community Design and Transportation Program, which is now VTA’s Land Use and Transportation Integration Program. 

Mr. Augenstein reported that VTA started the process of developing VTP 2030 about a year ago, wherein VTA began to bring results of some of the studies to the Board, through Committees and in Workshops.    In January 2004 VTA began the formal process at a Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting where the VTP 2030 process was a primary item.   This was the first time VTA presented project lists and program area allocations to the Board of Directors for consideration.  At that time, VTA also initiated an outreach program where VTA held a number of public meetings throughout Santa Clara County and implemented an interactive Website, posting of the project lists and program areas.

Mr. Augenstein reported that VTP 2030 includes the following ten Program Areas: Highway/Freeway, Expressway, Local Streets and County Roads, Transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Transportation Systems Operations and Management (SOM), Soundwalls, Pavement Management, Bicycle Projects, Landscape Restoration and Graffiti Removal, and Livable Communities and Pedestrians.    He noted that the Program Area allocations and project lists contained in the Plan were adopted by the Board of Directors in April 2004. 

Mr. Augenstein noted that there have been some minor updates to some of the project lists.   He noted that VTA did identify, which enabled VTA to raise projects into the committed areas.   He referred to the Highway Program and noted that there were a few projects where VTA worked out an agreement with Caltrans to attach Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) money to three projects, allowing the projects to get into the committed portion of the Plan.   In the Highway Program the projects are listed as H101-22, H101-23 and H25-02, noting that the projects are listed in the draft VTP 2030 on Page 87.

Mr. Augenstein reported that since April 2004, VTA has been working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to assure that all of the projects contained in VTA’s document are in the RTP.    VTA has also been developing a new VTP 2030 model.

Mr. Augenstein reported that VTA will take the VTP 2030 document through all of VTA’s Advisory Committees for further comment and VTA is anticipating Board adoption of VTP 2030 at the December 9, 2004 Board of Directors’ Meeting.

Member Batra expressed concern regarding the amount of funds used for ITS Program Enhancements versus funds used for litter clean-up and bicycle and pedestrian trails.   He noted that the funds should be balanced.

Member Jenkins noted that in the past the document has been circulated much earlier and VTA has sought input from the City Councils by going to the Councils, via meetings or study sessions, and explaining the document and the process.   This allowed the City of Mountain View’s Council to take formal action at a later meeting.  She expressed concern that the City of Mountain View’s Council never had a chance to review and comment on the document and to take a City position on the document.  She queried about the document being adopted in January 2005, in order for the City of Mountain to take a position on the document.

Member Rose noted that the City of Sunnyvale believes that the Plan is not consistent with the agreement that the Agency entered into with the City of Sunnyvale in 1993.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) as Santa Clara County’s long-range countywide transportation plan for adoption by the Board of Directors. 

The Agenda was taken out of order.

2004 Tier 1 Bicycle Projects Biennial Review

Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that in the Year 2000 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee developed a list of high priority bicycle projects throughout Santa Clara County.   The list was adopted by the Board of Directors as the Tier 1 Bicycle List and was constrained to a ten-year funding estimate.  

Ms. Rensi noted that three kinds of updates need to be done to the List and directed attention to Attachment A: Recommended Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) funding for Tier 1 Bicycle Projects.   She noted the six projects requesting a BEP allocation increase, the project requesting a major scope change, and the project being dropped.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the adoption of the revised Tier 1 Bicycle Projects and Schedules. 

Bicycle Expenditure Program: Proposed Policy Changes

Ms. Rensi reported that this item is to recommend some changes to the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) policies.   One, to incorporate changes that have occurred since starting the Program and to clean-up discrepancies that those changes created.  Ms. Rensi noted that the biggest change was that when the Tier 1 List was adopted, it was constrained to a fund estimate of about $32-33 million over a ten-year period.  There was a Tier 2 List of projects, some equally as important, but just did not fit into the projections.  She reported since then, MTC, through T2030, set aside regional federal dollars for bike projects and VTA Board of Directors took action in April 2004 to dedicate the funds to the Tier 2 List.  Ms. Rensi reported that VTA is proposing to merge the two lists into one big Tier and make that the Bicycle Expenditure Program.

Ms. Rensi noted that there are some other things VTA would like to change as well.  She noted that the original program estimates were for ten years, so the BEP really sunsets in 2011.  The money being provided to VTA from MTC actually runs through 2030.  VTA is proposing to extend the local component of the program out to 2030.  Ms. Rensi directed attention to Attachment B – Projected BEP Funding 2000 – 2030, and provided an overview.

Ms. Rensi noted that the review period would be revised to every three years instead of every two, so that it is in line with the plan cycles.   VTA is also recommending revising the project evaluation criteria for the big Tier to match MTC’s criteria for the Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Program. She directed attention to Attachment C – Proposed Evaluation Criteria for the Bicycle Expenditure Program, which contained the proposed BEP criteria based on the MTC criteria and directed attention to Attachment D – VTA Evaluation Criteria (Adopted 2000), which contained the original VTA criteria.

Ms. Rensi noted that VTA is asking for a policy in considering cost increases for the Tier.   She noted that after discussion with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee, the proposal is to limit requests for additional BEP allocations to 25 percent.

Member Rose noted that if the Tiers were to be combined or expanded out to the 30^th year, then there should not be an artificial deadline to start construction by 2007.  The issue is that everything is being forced in the first ten years under that scenario.  He noted that the heading listed no longer applies.   

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed policy changes for the Bicycle Expenditure Program. 

1996 Measure B and TEA-21 Pavement Management Program Final Report

Ms. Rensi provided a brief overview on the 1996 Measure B and Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) Pavement Management Program Final Report, noting that more than $132 million in pavement management and roadway rehabilitation has been successfully delivered over the last five years in Santa Clara County.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the 1996 Measure B and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) Pavement Management Program Final Report was received and filed. 

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July-December 2004

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, directed attention to the chart entitled Progress Summary Sheet Funds Expiring in 2004, and noted that funds are expiring in 2004 for the following two projects: 1) River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Project and 2) San Fernando Light Rail Station Plaza Improvement Project.

Member McNeely directed attention to the chart entitled Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report, April – June 2004, Page 13 of 53,   Sponsor: City of Milpitas, Project Title: Coyote Creek Trail Class 1 Bicycle Path, and requested that the project be removed.

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July – December 2004 was received and filed. 

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report was received and filed. 

OTHER

Announcements

Member Tripousis queried if there has been any discussion regarding the allocation of transportation funds as a result of the Proposition 68 and 70 losses.   Mr. Ristow stated “yes”, and indicated there may not be as much as first reported.  He indicated that it is under a cloud of lawsuits, noting that the losing card clubs have sued the State.

Member McNeely announced his retirement from the City of Milpitas on December 30, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

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