Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:32   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.

Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Porter welcomed new TAC Member, Henry Louie, Public Works Director and City Engineer, from the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Chairperson Porter noted the retirement of former TAC Member, Mike McNeely, City of Milpitas.   He noted that it was suggested that VTA staff prepare a letter of appreciation recognizing Mr. McNeely’s service as a member on TAC and to the County of Santa Clara.   Chairperson Porter noted that VTA staff prepared the letter of appreciation and the letter will be sent around to TAC Members in attendance to sign.

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

Member Curtis took his seat at 1:35 p.m.

Minutes of May 12, 2005

M/S/C (Tripousis/Oliva) to approve   Minutes of May 12, 2005.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report from April through June 2005   

M/S/C (Tripousis/Oliva) to receive and file the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report from April through June 2005. 

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005

M/S/C (Tripousis/Oliva) to receive and file the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report – January through March 2005 was received and filed. 

FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

M/S/C (Tripousis/Oliva) to receive and file the FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report. 

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Committee Staff Report (continued)

John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, introduced new VTA employees Jamye Kunz, Communications Manager, Media Relations and Community Outreach; and Sam Lau, Deputy Director of Operations, Operations Planning & Support Services.

Santa Clara County High Occupancy Toll Lane Demonstration Project

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

Casey Emoto, Transportation Engineering Manager, distributed the following documents entitled: 1) High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Feasibility Study Executive Summary and 2) Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study Summary, August 2005.

Mr. Emoto provided a visual presentation on the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study Summary, highlighting: 1) What is a HOT Lane?, 2) Assembly Bill 2032 (2004), 3) Study Purpose, 4) Study Timeline, 5) What makes a good HOT Lane Corridor?, 6) Destinations and Travel Patterns, 7) Demonstration Project Feasibility, 8) Access Points for HOT Lanes, 9) 2010 AM Peak Hour Projected HOT Lane Level of Service (LOS), 10) 2010 PM Peak Hour Projected HOT Lane LOS, and 11) Net Revenue Potential 2010 Daily.

Member Curtis queried if the HOT Lane would take the place of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane.   Mr. Emoto noted that the HOV Lane would still exist, but would be converted to HOT Lane operations.  Member Curtis asked how does one tell the difference between the number of passengers in a car, whether it is one or more.  He noted that it seems like there would be a complex sorting issue.  Mr. Emoto indicated that enforcement is one of the largest challenges with these sort of projects and noted the enforcement procedures conducted in Minneapolis where HOT Lanes have been recently implemented. 

Alternate Member Oliva queried if VTA had looked at different revenue projections if going to run a two person plus HOV or a three person plus HOV type standard.   He referred to the number of people to be qualified as a carpool, whether it would be two or three, and queried if it would change the opportunity for revenue.  Mr. Emoto noted that a revenue analysis had not been done for a three plus HOV, but had been done for the two plus HOV.

Mr. Emoto continued the visual presentation on the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study Summary, highlighting the following Geometric Considerations: a) Painted striped buffer or physical barrier, b) Locating electronic toll collection equipment, c) Separate ingress and egress points, d) Enforcement and maintenance areas, e) Second HOT Lane in a direction, and f) Termination of HOT Lanes.

Alternate Member Witthaus noted that it seems that there is a need to restrict access to have a successful system.   He referred to the use of physical barriers and queried about the order of magnitude of cost to modify the freeways if barriers were put into place.     Mr. Emoto noted that if a physical barrier were put into place, an additional lane would probably be required.

Mr. Emoto continued the visual presentation on the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study Summary, highlighting the following Projects Elsewhere to Follow: a) Minneapolis I-394 MnPASS HOT Lanes, b) I-680 Smart Carpool Lanes, and c) SANDAG Managed Lanes.

Upon query of Alternate Member Oliva, Mr. Emoto noted that the Highway 91 Corridor was also considered a HOT lane.

Mr. Emoto continued the visual presentation on the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study Summary, highlighting: 1) I-394 MnPASS HOT Lanes: Potential Model for Santa Clara County, 2) Equity Study Findings, 3) Summary of Candidate Corridors, and 4) Next Steps.

Upon query of Member Kass, Mr. Emoto noted that VTA submitted a grant application to the Federal Highway Administration’s 2005 Value Pricing Pilot Program to fund 80 percent of the continuing work and the grant funding requires a 20 percent local match.

Alternate Member Likens expressed concern regarding the high price to convert an HOV Lane into a HOT Lane and asked why it was being done.   Mr. Emoto referred to existing HOT Lane projects and noted that this will maximize use of the HOV Lane.

Member Curtis queried if the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study was contingent upon getting the grant money.   Mr. Ristow referred to the Board Memorandum, noting that the grant has been delayed and based upon VTA’s findings, which is, the Project is feasible, and should be moved to the next step.

Upon query of Alternate Member Tripousis, Mr. Ristow noted that if VTA does not receive the grant, we will re-apply next year.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Oliva) to review and recommend that VTA Board of Directors authorize VTA staff to proceed to the preliminary engineering phase in the development of a demonstration project of a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane based on the findings of the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study.  

VTP 2030 Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study

Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning Manager, reported that the Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study are being pursued at the direction of the VTA Board of Directors.     He noted that the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 identifies $188 million in 2000 Measure A funds for the development of new rail transit corridors.  It also includes a study to evaluate up to seven potential new rail transit corridors.

Mr. Augenstein reported that the study will be conducted in two phases.   The first phase will examine VTA’s existing criteria and propose new changes to better link VTA capital investments with land-use and infrastructure commitments from local agencies.   Ultimately, VTA also envisions establishing a policy framework that merges the two decision-making actions together in a more effective manner.  

Mr. Augenstein noted that staff would like to develop a process that is responsive to VTA’s long-term capital financial goals, which will translate into ridership and revenue.   VTA would like to broaden the range of modes that may be considered for capital expansion.   Mr. Augenstein noted that Phase I will develop a policy that will be utilized in Phase II, noting that staff is studying the seven corridors that are identified in VTP 2030.

Mr. Augenstein noted that some of the corridors may not be good candidates for rail expansion, but may be good candidates for Enhanced Bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).   VTA wants to make sure that the corridors are evaluated fairly in the study process.  He noted that if one of the seven corridors identified does not meet the criteria, VTA wants to have a process in place to provide guidelines about what kinds of actions to take to evaluate that corridor up to the proper level to meet the criteria and be a potential candidate for capital transit expansion.

Mr. Augenstein reported that VTA has concluded a process to bring in a consultant team and anticipates VTA Board adoption of the consultant contract in September 2005.   VTA staff will largely be doing Phase I, which is policy development, and would return to TAC and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).   

Member Kass queried if there were some concerns about doing an analysis on the corridors now when land-use designations and other conditions in 15 to 20 years may change.   Mr. Augenstein noted that there is a real possibility that some of the corridors may come out in the mix as being excellent BRT or Enhanced Bus corridors, which then could potentially have some very high quality transit service implemented much more quickly than waiting for the $188 million.

Member Kass referred to the West Valley Cities and to the Town of Los Gatos and City of Campbell.   He noted that Vasona is not viewed as a new corridor; it is viewed as an extension of an existing corridor wherein VTA already owns the right-of-way, noting that the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been completed.  He recommended that staff make a statement to that regard in the study.

Alternate Member Witthaus referred to the City of Sunnyvale’s 1993 agreement with the then Transit District and noted that the City of Sunnyvale still believes that the agreement is valid, and that it needs to be taken into consideration and worked into the development of the Policy.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study.   

Legislative Report Update

Kurt M. Evans, Government Affairs Manager, referred to the State level and noted that the State Budget was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on July 11, 2005.   From a transportation perspective, the Budget turned out to be much better than contemplated.   Mr. Evans noted that in January 2005, the Governor was proposing to keep Proposition 42 in the General Fund to help deal with the State General Fund deficit.  In May, the Governor then announced, based upon some changes in terms of revenue expected in the upcoming fiscal year (FY), that he would fully support funding Proposition 42 in FY 2006.  The enacted Budget would provide through Proposition 42 revenues about $1.3 billion in FY 06 for various transportation programs at the State level. Of the $1.3 billion, the first $678 million would be used for Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Projects.  The remaining amount gets split 40 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 40 percent to Local Streets and Roads, and 20 percent to public transportation.

Mr. Evans distributed and provided an overview of the following charts that showed the numbers for Santa Clara County for each of the components of Proposition 42: 1) FY 2006 Proposition 42: STIP Funding for San Francisco Bay Area Counties (Based on May Revise projection of $1.313 billion statewide), 2) FY 2006 Proposition 42: Local Streets and Roads Funding for Santa Clara County (Based on May Revise projection of $1.313 billion statewide), 3) FY 2006 Proposition 42: State Transit Assistance Program (STA) Funding for San Francisco Bay Area Transit Operators (Based on May Revise projection of $1.313 billion statewide), and 4) Santa Clara County Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Projects.

Mr. Evans provided a report on AB 144 (Hancock) – Toll Bridge Seismic Safety Retrofit Program.   He noted that the legislation is very complex and has a lot of different pieces that deal not only with the funding picture, but also roles and responsibilities between Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in terms of how we move forward with completing the Bay Bridge and other outstanding seismic retrofit projects on the toll bridges in the Bay Area.  Mr. Evans noted that the bill calls for an increase in the tolls on the seven state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area from the current $3 to $4 beginning January 1, 2007.

Mr. Evans referred to the Federal level and provided a report on the Reauthorization Bill called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).   The bill reauthorizes federal surface transportation programs for a six-year period and the Reauthorization Bill covers FY 2004 through FY 2009.  It authorizes $286.4 billion over that period for federal surface transportation programs;  $52.6 billion would go to transit and the remainder would go to highway programs and highway safety.  Mr. Evans provided a report on the reasons why it took two years for the legislation to happen.  He noted that President Bush signed the bill on Wednesday, August 10, 2005, and the process has concluded.

Mr. Evans noted that on the transit side in the reauthorization process one does not get real money; one gets eligibility.   The legislation comes into play with the New Starts Program.  SAFETEA-LU reauthorizes the BART Project for New Starts funds for all levels of project activity.  It retains VTA’s eligibility to continue to seek and receive New Starts funding for the annual appropriations process.  With regards to the BART Project, there is language in the bill that exempts four projects from some more restrictive requirements that were recently imposed by the Federal Transportation Administration on New Starts Project Sponsors without a formal rule making process. 

Mr. Evans referred to the highway side in SAFETEA-LU, distributed and provided an overview on the chart entitled Santa Clara County Earmarks in House Resolution (H.R.) 3. 

Mr. Evans noted that after going through the earmarking game, which will be in the annual appropriation process for the four years or so, it seems that there may be an opportunity to use TAC as a venue to coordinate VTA’s earmarking strategy at the federal level.   He noted that he would like to discuss the federal earmarking strategy at the October 13, 2005 TAC Meeting.

Member Kass queried about the availability of project funds for Santa Clara County.   Mr. Evans noted that as soon as the information is available he would inform TAC.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell queried about receiving Proposition 42 funding in 2007/2008.   Mr. Evans noted that, at present, the Governor’s Office in the California Transportation Commission, for purposes of allocating funds for the STIP and TCRP, are assuming no Proposition 42 funding at all in FY 2007.

Alternate Member Witthaus queried if there was tribal gaming money for transportation as well included in the Budget or has that helped fund Proposition 42.  Mr. Evans noted that it is a carry-over from the 2005 State Budget and it was rolled over into the FY 2006 Budget.  In the FY 2006 Budget the estimates for how much those tribal gaming bonds would yield are somewhat less than what was anticipated.

Mr. Evans referred to earmarking and noted he would ask those individuals who participate in the earmarking game to give some thought as to what they might put in the mix in FY 2007 and recommend that the individuals send their thoughts to VTA.  VTA would then collect and compile them into a list and share them with TAC at their December 2005 Meeting.  Mr. Evans noted that he would like to bring the State and Federal Legislative Programs to TAC for review in November 2005.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee received a Legislative Report Update.

Announcements

Member Curtis referred to the Community Bus Pilot Program in the City of Los Gatos and requested an update on ridership.   Mr. Ristow noted that the item would be agendized at the September 8, 2005 TAC Meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 2:50 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.