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 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.

Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.

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

Minutes of November 10, 2005

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

Nominating Committee Report for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2006

Chairperson Porter noted that the Nominating Committee consisted of Member Curtis and Alternate Member Rowe.

Alternate Member Goepfert took his seat at 1:36 p.m.

Member Curtis noted that the Nominating Committee proposed the following slate of candidates: Steve Yoshino as Chairperson and Don Dey as Vice Chairperson for 2006.

Chairperson Porter noted that the election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2006 would be held at the January 12, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee received the Nominating Committee Report for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2006. 

Freeway Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Program – Final Report

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, distributed the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for Freeways in Santa Clara County Final Report.

Member Rose took his seat at 1:39 p.m.

Mr. Sighamony thanked Member Kass, Member Curtis, Alternate Member Tripousis, and Bob Salazar, Caltrans-District 4, for their assistance with the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study.

Mr. Sighamony reported that the Study outlined a list of recommendations for achieving litter control standards and improving countywide conditions. 

Mr. Sighamony reported that the initial findings of the Study were presented at the May 6, 2005 TAC Meeting.  The initial findings of the Study included an assessment of the litter control and landscape maintenance problem, presented information on the resources currently and historically deployed, and provided a comparison of the County of Santa Clara with other locations.   

Mr. Sighamony reported that the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for Freeways in Santa Clara County Final Report defines the litter and landscape maintenance standards, determines the resources needed to achieve the standards, and develops implementation alternatives. 

Mr. Sighamony directed attention to the Final Report, Section 2 – Existing Conditions, and provided an overview, highlighting: 1) Current Conditions, 2) Caltrans level of service (LOS) Ratings, 3) Caltrans Current Programs, 4) Caltrans Resource Allocations, 5) Adopt-A-Highway Program, 6) Special Programs People, 7) Public Education, and 8) Comparisons With Other Areas.  

Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section 3 – Standards, and noted two types of standards for litter control and landscaping maintenance: 1) Visual Standard and 2) Level of Effort Standard.   He reported that a visual standard needs to be established, because it gives a desired result, and a level of effort standard will help to establish the resource needs.  Mr. Sighamony referred to the Visual Standard and provided a report, highlighting: 1) Caltrans’ LOS Standards and 2) Litter and Landscape Scales.  He noted that in terms of scales, Keep America Beautiful (KAB) has a litter index, which is a visual survey to score litter conditions. The Keep America Beautiful (KAB) index was used as a model to develop the freeway litter and landscaping scales.  Mr. Sighamony referred to Table 3-1, Litter Scale, and Table 3-2, Landscape/Vegetation Scale, contained in the Final Report and noted that Dawn Cameron, Planning Consultant for T.Y. Lin International, would provide an overview.

Ms. Cameron noted the KAB index was used as a model, but their photos were not used and their definitions were adjusted to work with freeways.   She directed attention to the following photos (color version) that were distributed, noting that the same photos (black & white version) were also contained in the Final Report.   She indicated that the photos, taken on Santa Clara County freeways mostly within the last month/month and a half, showed the suggested visual scale standards.  Ms. Cameron provided an overview of the photos, highlighting: 1) Figure 3-1, Visual Standard Photos, No Litter; 2) Figure 3-2, Visual Standard Photos, Slightly Littered; 3) Figure 3-3, Visual Standard Photos, Littered; and 4) Figure 3-4, Visual Standard Photos, Extremely Littered.  Ms. Cameron indicated that “No Litter” is desirable, but it is not feasible for the entire freeway network all the time.  Therefore, “Slightly Littered” was recommended as the minimum standard for Santa Clara County freeways. 

Ms. Cameron continued the overview of the photos, highlighting: 1) Figure 3-5, Visual Standard Photos, Attractive Landscape/Vegetation; 2) Figure 3-6, Visual Standard Photos, Decent Landscape/Vegetation; and 3) Figure 3-7, Visual Standard Photos, Neglected Landscape/Vegetation. Ms. Cameron noted that the “Decent Landscape/Vegetation” appearance was recommended as the minimum standard for Santa Clara County freeways.

Ms. Cameron directed attention to Table 3-3, Current and Proposed Levels of Efforts, and provided an overview.

Ms. Cameron directed attention to Section 4, Table 4-1, Recommended Implementation Strategies, and provided an overview, noting that there were 21 strategies divided into three main categories: 1) Improve or Expand Caltrans Litter and Landscape Program, 2) Reduce Litter Volume and Maintenance Requirements, and 3) Alternative Institutional Arrangements.   She referred to the Final Report, Appendix B – Litter and Landscape Production Totals, and noted that the Appendix contained a seven-page matrix detailing each strategy.  

Member Jenkins referred to Strategy #10. “Require garbage haulers/disposal sites to clean up haul routes” and queried if garbage haulers were the cause of the most littered routes.   Ms. Cameron noted that studies are showing that although the garbage haulers are responsible for a certain amount of litter, the general public is responsible for most litter.

Member Curtis indicated that Highway 85 is not a haul route in the general area of Guadalupe but other roads in the area are haul routes.   He expressed concern regarding the litter being placed on other roads, noting that they are arterials not highways, and queried if the issue was being addressed.   Ms. Cameron noted that the Study itself is focused on the freeways and some of the strategies will have a secondary benefit. 

Ms. Cameron suggested that to go to the Proposed Levels of Effort recommended in the Final Report, including the enhancement of the Adopt-A-Highway Program, increasing usage of probationers, and Caltrans support of the programs, would mean an increase of approximately $1.4 million annually for Caltrans maintenance in Santa Clara County.   Ms. Cameron indicated the amount is about 50 percent more than the current budget.   She indicated that a detailed report of each cost factor is contained in the Final Report.

Ms. Cameron directed attention to Table 4-2, Potential Funding Sources, noting that the list contains various funding sources that could be used to increase litter control/landscape maintenance activities.   She referred to the first potential funding source contained on the list, noting that it was a high priority: “Advocate for more maintenance resources from Caltrans”.    Ms. Cameron indicated that the freeways are the responsibility of the State of California and local jurisdictions need to be assured that the State is doing everything possible and Santa Clara County is receiving its fare share of resources to address the problems.  Ms. Cameron provided a report on the recommendations for obtaining the necessary resources.

Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section 5 of the Final Report and provided a report on the six-month pilot program being recommended to determine the level of effort required. The pilot program would focus on two freeways: 1) US 101 between Highways 85 and 237 and 2) I-880 between Highways 237 and 85. 

Mr. Sighamony provided a report on the next steps, noting that a partnership would be required in order to implement the recommended strategies and pilot program between VTA, Caltrans, local jurisdictions, and other organizations.   He noted that Caltrans and VTA would initiate a task force to implement the pilot program and provide staff support. 

Vice Chairperson Yoshino referred to the funds given to Districts 11 (San Diego) and 12 (Orange County) and queried if Santa Clara County is receiving its fare share of the funds.   Ms. Cameron referred to the assessment report and noted when the expenditure information was received from Districts 11 and 12, in order to make it comparable to Santa Clara County, the information was broken down to per mile and per landscape acre comparison. She noted that what is being spent in Santa Clara County is fairly comparable to what is being spent per mile and per landscape acre in one of the other districts.

Member Curtis referred to the pilot program and queried about Caltrans’ ability to get more resources.   Mr. Salazar noted that Caltrans would be redirecting resources for the pilot program, but the problem is getting more people to help alleviate the litter/landscaping problem.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell indicated that in this fiscal year, Caltrans is trying to be more responsive to litter concerns and has redirected within its own budget $10 million additional towards litter and landscaping, approximately $3.2 million for District 4.

Alternate Member Likens queried if the sanitation companies/garbage haulers were spoken to regarding controlling the litter being dropped out of their vehicles and whether they were approached about adopting segments of the freeway that they mostly impact.  Mr. Sighamony referred to the next steps and noted that the intent is to include the sanitation companies/garbage haulers in the process as well as other organizations.

Mr. Sighamony noted that the Final Report would be forwarded to VTA Board of Directors in February 2006 for approval.   After approval, VTA and Caltrans would work together in implementing the process to help alleviate the litter/landscaping problem.

Upon query of Alternate Member Collen, Mr. Sighamony noted that the members of the task force would assess the effectiveness of the pilot program.

Member Dey queried about the funds generated by the Adopt-A-Highway Program and if it was possible to segment the funds.    Ms. Cameron noted that there are two ways for the Adopt-A-Highway Program to work. An organization could adopt-a-highway or a company could choose to hire a contractor, noting that there are three contractors in the State that are certified by Caltrans.   When a company chooses to sponsor an adopt-a-highway, the prices vary.  For a two-mile segment for a once a month pick-up, it could range from $140 to $300 a month. 

Ex-Officio Member Cowell queried if there was any effort in Santa Clara County to look at increasing the frequency of litter pick-up through the Adopt-A-Highway Program.  Mr. Salazar indicated Caltrans has increased pick-up, noting that the Adopt-A-Highway Program has been revamped and all segments realigned to put more adoptees out on the highway.   Caltrans has also asked for a minimum pick-up of 12 times year.

Member Kass complimented VTA staff for stepping in and providing some political leadership on the litter/landscaping issue.   He expressed concern that District 4 is the worst in the State and Santa Clara County is the worst in District 4.    Member Kass noted the need to look at this as a step for an ongoing effort to continue to alleviate the problem and make a collective effort to get rid of the litter.  Member Kass noted his support in forwarding the Final Report to the Board of Directors for endorsement.

M/S/C (Kass/Rowe) to review and recommend that VTA Board of Directors approve the Final Report of the Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Program. 

Fiscal Year 2006-2015 Short Range Transit Plan

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager, provided a PowerPoint Presentation on the Fiscal Year 2006-2015 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), highlighting: 1) What is the SRTP, 2) Purpose & Organization of the SRTP, 3) Transit Services, 4) Losses in Ridership and Jobs, 5) Service and Ridership Reductions, 6) Financial Stability, 7) Operating Financial Plan, 8) Capital Improvement Program, and 9) SRTP Review & Approval Process.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and discussed the Fiscal Year 2006-2015 Short Range Transit Plan. 

Cooperative Agreement with the County of Santa Clara to Develop and Administer a Lifeline Transportation Program in Santa Clara County

Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that the Lifeline Transportation Program was established by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)  to fund projects resulting in improved mobility for low-income residents in the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. Ms. Gonot noted that MTC has proposed that the Lifeline Transportation Program be administered at the county level for a three-year demonstration, and that Supervisor Jim Beall, MTC Commissioner, requested that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and County of Santa Clara jointly administer the Program.  In order to implement the Program jointly, VTA and the County of Santa Clara intend to enter into a cooperative agreement.

Amin Surani, Sr. Transportation Engineer, provided a report on the Lifeline Transportation Program goals.   He noted that the Program would address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community-Based Transportation Plan.   The Lifeline Transportation Program would be a $4 million Program over the next three years. Ms. Gonot noted two areas identified for Community-Based Transportation Plans: 1) City of Gilroy and 2) East San Jose.  

Mr. Surani reported that VTA and the County of Santa Clara intend to establish a    seven-member Joint Lifeline Transportation Committee, which would look into MTC guidelines, form the Program, and issue a call for Lifeline Transportation Program projects in the County of Santa Clara.   The call for projects would be issued in approximately March 2006 and a list of projects has to be submitted to MTC by           June 2006.

Ms. Gonot reported that the draft cooperative agreement establishes roles by building upon the strengths that each agency brings to the partnership.   She indicated that the County of Santa Clara would be responsible for coordinating the selection of projects with non-profit social service providers and VTA would act as the liaison with MTC for programming of projects and track the progress of projects.

Upon query of Member Jenkins, Ms. Gonot noted that the Lifeline Transportation Program would be funded through the Jobs and Reverse Commute (JARC), State Transit Assistance (STA), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding sources.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and discussed the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Santa Clara to Develop and Administer a Lifeline Transportation Program in Santa Clara County.  

Modified VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario Recommendation

Jack J. Collins, Chief Construction Officer, reported that the recommended VTA Scenario was presented at the VTA Advisory Committees in October 2005 and was to be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their November 3, 2005 Meeting.  But based upon concerns raised by the Advisory Committees and community interests, the recommended VTA Scenario was deferred. The recommended VTA Scenario did not have enough funding with an additional quarter-cent sales tax to fund all the projects in the original program.  VTA had a concept of an Initial Program and a Completion Plan Program.  Mr. Collins indicated that the Advisory Committees expressed concern that the Completion Program was too large and there was a desire to get the San Jose Airport People Mover to the airport from the future Santa Clara BART Station into the Initial Program.  He reported that during the week of November 30, 2005, VTA completed its analysis of how to do that and prepared a Modified VTA Scenario proposal that was presented to the Board of Directors at their December 1, 2005 Meeting.

Mr. Collins directed attention to the Board Memorandum and provided a report on the Modified VTA Scenario, which addressed the concerns with the VTA Scenario submitted to the Board of Directors in October 2005. He directed attention to the following item on Page 2 of 4, Item #1. Too many projects are in the completion plan.   He noted that VTA staff was able to reduce the original October 2005 VTA Scenario in regards to the dollar volume in the Completion Plan from $1.9 billion to $1.3 billion, achieved by moving the San Jose Airport People Mover into the Initial Program.  

Mr. Collins directed attention to the following item on Page 3 of 4, Item #2. Public support for the Airport People Mover project is high and there is a desire to include it in the initial plan.   The City of San Jose staff have proposed funding reductions to the Pavement Management/County Roads/Bicycle/Pedestrian program in order to accomplish this, however, other cities such as Gilroy and Morgan Hill have expressed serious concerns with such a plan.   He noted that VTA achieved this by not touching the Pavement Management/County Roads/Bicycle/Pedestrian program.  VTA looked at a creative financing tool in cooperation with the City of San Jose to look at developing some short-term additional bonding capacity.  Under the Scenario VTA would look to the City of San Jose around the year 2014 to help VTA with bonding capacity in the amount of approximately $250 million to cover the periods of construction beginning in 2014 through 2018.  Under the Scenario the San Jose Airport People Mover could actually open around the same time as BART.  VTA would then pay back the City of San Jose the principal and interest through 2021. 

Mr. Collins directed attention to the following item on Page 3 of 4, Item #3. Concerns about the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Transit Corridor public outreach and mode decision-making process.  Mr. Collins noted that there has not been a decision made on the mode and VTA is currently preparing an environmental document and is looking at two alternatives in the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor.  One alternative is “enhanced bus” service and the other alternative is “single car light rail”.  VTA probably has enough funds in the Initial Program to do enhanced bus, but not enough to do single car light rail.

Mr. Collins directed attention to the following item on Page 3 of 4, Item #4. Concerns about new projects having priority over original 2000 Measure A Projects.  Mr. Collins noted that the VTA Scenario proposes a 30-year tax and keeps the Pavement Management Program in tact. The 2000 Measure A Plan has a 12.4 percent service increase being phased in and then an additional increase to 24 percent by 2020.  In order to squeeze the San Jose Airport People Mover into the Initial Plan, VTA had to push the 24 percent level out to 2023.

Mr. Collins directed attention to the following item on Page 3 of 4, Item #5. Concerns about the timing in the initial plan of the Capital Expressway Light Rail extension to Eastridge and the future completion plan extension to Nieman.  Mr. Collins noted that a decision has not been made on how to get the Capital Expressway Light Rail extension to Eastridge completed earlier.  At present, the Capital Expressway Light Rail extension to Eastridge is anticipated to be completed by 2018.

Mr. Collins reported that the Board of Directors did not take action on the Modified VTA Scenario and deferred action until the February 2006 Board of Directors Meeting. 

Mr. Collins noted that Members of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and TAC had requested that VTA staff discuss the City of San Jose’s proposed recommendations to the VTA Scenario that were tabled at the December 1, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting.  He indicated that VTA staff has not finished analyzing the City of San Jose’s proposed recommendations and that the analysis would be presented at all the VTA Committees in January 2006.  Mr. Collins noted that VTA staff has been scheduled to present its analysis on the City of San Jose’s proposed recommendations to VTA’s Scenario at the January 10, 2006 County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Meeting and then VTA’s Modified Scenario would be forwarded to the full VTA Board of Directors in February 2006.

Member Dey referred to the letter addressed to VTA Board of Director and General Manager from the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy expressing concern regarding VTA’s recommended Scenario. Mr. Collins noted that VTA responded to the letter and Ms. Gonot noted that staff would provide TAC with copies of the letters. 

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee   discussed the Modified VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario Recommendation. 

Announcements

Alternate Member Collen referred to the County of Santa Clara’s exploration of a sales tax measure and noted that the survey results have been posted on the County of Santa Clara’s website.

Chairperson Porter thanked TAC Members for their attendance at the meetings.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 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.