Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:36 p.m. by Chairperson Porter in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of February 10, 2005

M/S/C (Tripousis/McNeely) to approve the Minutes of February 10, 2005. 

Committee Staff Report

John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, directed attention to the Memorandum dated March 8, 2005, reflecting the Caltrain 2005-2006 Budget Process and Schedule.

Mr. Ristow referred to the Long-Term Capital Investment Program Revenue and Expenditure Plan and noted that VTA staff is available to provide a presentation at the City Councils.   The item will be discussed at the April 22, 2005 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting, returning to the VTA Advisory Committees in May 2005, and forecasted for further consideration/approval by the Board of Directors in June 2005.

On order of Chairperson Porter, 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

Implementation Plan for VTP 2030 Highway Projects

Mr. Ristow reported that the Board of Directors approved the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) 25-year plan at their February 2005 Meeting.   Monies were dedicated for 40 separate highway projects located throughout County of Santa Clara, and the 40 projects listed in the Plan are expected to be funded over a 25-year period.

Mr. Ristow noted that in order to move the next round of highway projects forward, it is necessary to establish a shorter list of the 40 projects that are able to move into the next stage of project development.   He directed attention to the projects contained on Page 2 of 2 of the Staff Report and noted that the first six projects listed are prepared to move into the Project Study Report (PSR) phase.  The remaining four projects listed have begun the PSR phase due to the efforts of the City of San Jose.

Upon query of Member Collen, Mr. Ristow noted that there would not be any impact to the other categories contained in VTP 2030.

Member Dey directed attention to the following third project listed on Page 2 of 2 of the Staff Report: US 101 Conversion to Four-Lane Freeway: SR 25 to Santa Clara County/San Benito County Line.   He queried about if the Route 25/101 Interchange was part of the project.  Mr. Ristow indicated “no” and noted that there is already a PSR completed for Route 25 from Hollister to US 101, including the Interchange, and that piece of US 101 that is not a freeway up to Monterey. 

Member Kass directed attention to the Fiscal Impact listed on Page 2 of 2 of the Staff Report and queried about the funding for the PSR work on the various projects.   Mr. Ristow noted that there are several cities interested in contributing funds and VTA’s contribution would be coming from its Local Program Reserve (LPR).

M/S/C (Tripousis/McNeely) to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the Implementation Plan for Highway Projects included in Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030). 

South County Circulation Study

Mr. Ristow referred to the list of projects contained in VTP 2030 that are expected to be funded over a 25-year period and reported that VTA conducted an extensive amount of corridor and gateway studies, noting that the Expressway Plan was completed by the County of Santa Clara.

Mr. Ristow noted that the objective of the South County Circulation Study is to evaluate regional and local automobile traffic and transit service circulation throughout the southern portion of Santa Clara County, including the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill,  San Jose, the community of San Martin, and the unincorporated County areas.   He noted that a series of meetings would be held with the cities, County, and Caltrans.

Member Collen queried about the schedule for assembling a Technical Advisory Committee to the study.   Mr. Ristow noted that meetings would be held individually with the County, cities of Gilroy and Morgan, and Caltrans.   Once individual meetings are held, an “all hands-on-deck” meeting would be held, and the Technical Advisory Committee would be formed.

Member Collen referred to the scope that VTA is working on with the consultant and queried if VTA needed city or County input on the scope.   Mr. Ristow noted that part of the process to develop the scope would be receiving input from the cities and County at the first meetings to be held.

Member Dey indicated it would be very helpful to have the cities involved in the scope, noting that the City of Gilroy has recently gone through its circulation master plan.

Upon query of Member McNeely, Mr. Ristow provided a brief report on the funds available in the Local Program Reserve.

Member Dey referred to the modeling of the South County circulation and queried if models from the Counties of San Benito and Monterey would be integrated into the analysis.   Casey Emoto, Senior Transportation Engineer, noted that when VTA updated its Transportation Demand Model, data was taken from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) model and placed into the Transportation Demand Model.   Member Dey noted his attendance at a meeting regarding the Route 25 corridor and indicated that AMBAG continues to update its database and recommended that VTA continue to update its database.

Member Tripousis expressed concern regarding the type of action the Committee is supposed to be taking on the items being forwarded to the Committee.   The Staff Reports are marked as Action items, but the recommendations reflect for Review and Comment.   He noted if the Committee is going to be recommending approval, then it should be reflected in the Staff Report.

Member Rose noted the importance of listing the type of item and spelling out the options to be taken; does VTA staff expect approval, a recommendation, or review and comment only.

Chairperson Porter stated when Action is marked on the Staff Report, it is assumed that VTA would like for the Committee to take action, but the recommendation does not clearly reflect what type of action is to be taken. 

Mr. Ristow noted that other VTA Committees are expressing concern pertaining to what their roles are as a Committee.

M/S/C (Collen/Tripousis) to approve the use of Local Program Reserve funds (LPR) in the amount of $500,000 for the South County Circulation Study; and to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with URS Corporation for the study for a total value not to exceed $500,000. 

I-880 Corridor Study

Mr. Ristow reported that VTA would be conducting a study of the I-880 Corridor and will prepare a study of local roadway circulation in the South County Area.   The scope of the I-880 Corridor Study will identify traffic operations deficiencies and evaluate a range of solutions for the deficiencies along I-880 between I-280 and US 101.  The study would satisfy a commitment VTA made to Caltrans when working with them on the I-880/Coleman Avenue Interchange. 

Member Kass asked how the study relates to a PSR on I-280/I-880 and would it make sense to do a PSR instead of looking at the whole corridor.    Member Tripousis noted that a study is completed that identifies an improvement in the amount of approximately  $15 million at the I-880/Stevens Creek Interchange that can be completed in the near term without necessarily precluding any other improvements in the corridor.

Member Kass expressed an interest in receiving an update on the process of how VTA gets from the master list of consultants to the $500,000 contracts.   Mr. Ristow noted that VTA went through a Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering firms approximately five years ago.  VTA will issue a new RFP in Summer 2005 and a new engineering firm list will be established.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell took his seat at 2:06 p.m.

M/S/C (Curtis/Dey) to recommend the Board of Directors approve the use of Local Program Reserve funds (LPR) in the amount of $500,000 for the I-880 Corridor Study; and to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Mark Thomas and Company for the study for a total value not to exceed $500,000.

Proposed New Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County

Mr. Ristow noted that the recommendation is asking TAC to support legislation establishing a new vehicle registration fee for Santa Clara County.   He reported that the proposed new Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County was agendized at the February 10, 2005 TAC Meeting.

Mr. Ristow noted that the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) Ad-Hoc Working Group had been discussing a potential expenditure plan to be used as a guideline for future formal development of expenditure by VTA should the legislation be signed into law.   The proposed framework to be used as the guideline was contained in Attachment A - Expenditure Plan Framework for SB 680 (Simitian) Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Bill.   The Bill would potentially generate $56 million for the cities and County for the series of projects that would ultimately be adopted into the Expenditure Plan.

Mr. Ristow noted that there was another Bill submitted into the Legislature from Assemblyman Clays in Alameda County.   The sponsor was acting for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency.   The nine Bay Area County Congestion Management Agencies are discussing whether or not it would make sense to combine all of their efforts into one. 

Member Collen referred to the County of Santa Clara’s offer with regard to the Competitive Pool as described in the Minutes of February 10, 2005 and in the Staff Report, and clarified that the County needs to retain the option of supplying project proposals for all of the Board of Supervisorial district areas.   The County will not limit County applications to South County Projects.

Member Tripousis noted that the City of San Jose presented the proposed New Vehicle Registration Fee for Santa Clara County item for a second time to its Council‘s Transportation Subcommittee and it was approved and now is being forwarded on for full Council action.   The one question that came up from one of the Council Members was “how do we insure that the State doesn’t have the where with all to get their hands on this pot of money as well like they do Proposition 42 or any other transportation kind of dollar?” 

Member Tripousis referred to the Expenditure Framework and noted that the Baby Bullet is still referred to as a potential expenditure.   Mr. Ristow noted that there had been concerns about having Caltrain in the framework.   He noted that there has not been a written opinion as yet from Counsel on the issue.

Member McNeely noted that the City of Milpitas’ Public Works Transportation Subcommittee also approved the item.

Member Rose noted that TAC cannot technically recommend that the item be funded, because the city councils have not made that action.   TAC endorses the strategy, concepts, and recommends that the Board of Directors consider the item.

M/S/C (Rowe/Dey) to recommend the Board of Directors support legislation establishing a new vehicle registration fee for Santa Clara County. 

OTHER

Announcements

Member McNeely announced that the March 10, 2005 TAC Meeting would probably be his last meeting and he introduced Greg Armendariz, the newly appointed City Engineer for the City of Milpitas.   He noted that the City Manager would be preparing a letter indicating that Mr. Armendariz is the new appointee to TAC.   

Ms. Gonot noted that approximately half of the cities have been scheduled for a VTA presentation on the Long-Term Capital Investment Program Revenue and Expenditure Plan.   She noted that the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) would probably be having a workshop prior to the April 22, 2005 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting to discuss the Long-Term Capital Investment Program Revenue and Expenditure Plan. 

Mr. Ristow introduced Nancy Coss-Fitzwater, the new Ex-Officio Member representing Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 2:26 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.