Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:43   p.m. by Chairperson Yoshino in the Rotunda, San Jose City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

A quorum was present.

Chairperson Yoshino thanked the City of San Jose for hosting the TAC meeting in the Rotunda.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Committee Staff Report

• Report from Board of Directors Chairperson Cindy Chavez. 

Jim Lawson, Government Affairs Manager and Staff Liaison, introduced the VTA Board of Directors Chairperson, Cindy Chavez.

Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez noted that part of the reason why the TAC meeting is being held at San Jose City Hall is to have the opportunity to acknowledge and thank TAC for all the work that they have done.   Another reason is to talk about VTA and its future and the relationship between the Board of Directors, VTA, TAC and its cities/county.   As the Board of Directors Chairperson, she and the General Manager, Michael T. Burns, are concerned about improving the relationship with the surrounding cities.  Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez indicated that she felt that “TAC had not been brought into the fold enough in terms of being able to advise not just their own cities, but the VTA Board of Directors as a whole.” 

Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez referred to the theme for 2006, “Full Participation, Full Information,” and indicated the need to work closely with TAC, as TAC’s technical expertise is very important to the future decisions that are made at VTA.   She noted that today was an opportunity for TAC to provide feedback on how the Board of Directors can do a better job of incorporating TAC’s expertise into the policy making at VTA.  

Member Jenkins recommended that TAC receive reports a month or two in advance to allow TAC adequate time to review the reports before they are forwarded to the Board of Directors.   She also recommended that TAC become more involved in VTA studies and that TAC be provided updates regarding the studies.

Member Likens recommended that TAC meet a week or so before the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meets, which would allow TAC adequate time to review and discuss items and to provide feedback to PAC in a timely manner.

Mr. Burns noted the difficulty in meeting that kind of schedule due to the amount of advance time needed to prepare the materials.   He suggested that TAC hold informal meetings, such as working meetings to review and provide input on materials that are submitted in a working document format and then the feedback from TAC would be included in the next level of documents or final documents.

Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez indicated that holding working meetings is a good idea to allow TAC to be involved earlier in the scoping and shaping process.  

Alternate Member Tripousis suggested that discussion on how the TAC can be more involved earlier in the process be added to the TAC Agenda for July 2006 to give TAC Members who are not present an opportunity to provide feedback.

Chairperson Yoshino suggested having a study session on how to increase the effectiveness of TAC.   He noted that TAC should give it some earnest thought, put something together along with staff, and then forward TAC’s comments to the Board of Directors.

Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez asked how TAC develops it Work Plan.  Chairperson Yoshino noted that TAC just recently received a Work Plan and that TAC had generally dealt with items that were placed on the agenda.  She recommended that the Board of Directors Chairperson and the future TAC and PAC Chairpersons meet with staff during the November 2006 timeframe to look at upcoming items and to give TAC Members an opportunity to indicate what their cities/county will be looking at in the future.    

Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez indicated that she had another engagement to attend, expressed her apologies for leaving, and noted that her Council Assistant, Adam Byrnes, was in attendance.

Chairperson Yoshino thanked Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez for attending the meeting.

Mr. Burns noted that TAC should probably be the most significant group that staff works with in terms of getting the real work done to move to the policy makers.

Mr. Lawson directed attention to the City of San Jose and City of Palo Alto presentations that were presented to PAC and provided to TAC at Chairperson Yoshino’s request.   He noted that at today’s PAC meeting the members would be receiving a presentation by the City of Sunnyvale.

Mr. Lawson referred to the Project Advisory Committee, noting that the Committee was established by Board of Directors Chairperson Chavez to look at VTA’s Expenditure Plan for the 30-Year Capital Projects associated with 2000 Measure A.   He noted that the Project Advisory Committee held five meetings to date and indicated that today’s meeting was being held at 5:30 p.m. in the City of Mountain View.   The agenda will consist of a review of activities on the Expenditure Plan to date, approval of adjustments that have been recommended to date, and a recommendation of approval of the 30-Year Expenditure Plan to be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their June 15, 2006 Board of Directors Special Meeting.  

Mr. Lawson noted the May 17, 2006 River Oaks Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Project and May 24, 2006 Route 85/U.S. 101 North Interchange Project Opening Ceremonies. 

Mr. Lawson announced that Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operations Officer, would soon be resigning from VTA and would be replaced by Dan Smith.   He introduced Dan Smith and noted his background.   Mr. Lawson announced that George Barlow, Chief Technology Officer, retired from VTA and that Doug Beley is now the acting Chief Technology Officer.  He also announced that Ann Jamison, Deputy Director of Congestion Management and Planning and the BART Project Planning Coordinator, has resigned from VTA.  He noted that Marian Lee-Skowronek is now the BART Project Planning Coordinator.

Mr. Lawson reported that VTA’s Organizational and Financial Assessment is underway, the Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued, and this morning there was a review and scoring of the proposals.   The second phase will be a short list of interviews of the selected firms and the interviews will be conducted on July 6^th and 7^th.  

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

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Yoshino encouraged TAC to provide input on how TAC can become more effective in the process.

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

CONSENT AGENDA

Minutes of May 11, 2006

M/S/C (Tripousis/Curtis) to approve the Minutes of May 11, 2006.

REGULAR AGENDA

Caltrain Capital Needs Study

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager, directed attention to the presentation document entitled “Caltrain Capital Needs Study” and noted that VTA originally developed the presentation for a study session that occurred in the North County Cities during the month of February 2006, to address questions/concerns raised regarding Caltrain. 

He directed attention to the Caltrain Capital Needs Study and provided a presentation, highlighting: 1) Summary of Current Caltrain Services; 2) Caltrain Governance and Management; 3) Funding – Capital Funding; 4) Funding – Operating Funding; 5) South County Caltrain Service – Overview; 6) Reinventing Caltrain; 7) New Caltrain Service Model – Baby Bullet; 8) Total Ridership Report Card, 2004-2006; 9) County by County Comparison, 2004-2006; 10) Train Capacity; 11) Riders by Time Period, 2004-2006; 12) Caltrain Electrification – Costs & Available Funding and Benefits; 13) System Capacity Issues; 14) Other System Capacity Issues; and 15) VTA Scenario Funds for Caltrain.

Mr. Connolly referred to the Caltrain Capital Needs Study and indicated that VTA has initiated a detailed study of Caltrain’s capital needs for Santa Clara County.   He noted that the study will be done in the following four major steps: 1) Establish future service demand; 2) Determine capital needs; 3) Develop criteria for project prioritization; and 4) Develop recommendations for VTA Board of Directors.  He indicated that the PAC Subcommittee would formulate criteria and develop a prioritized list of Caltrain investments.  The Caltrain Capital Needs Study is scheduled for completion by the end of the calendar year. 

Member Curtis directed attention to Page 3 of the presentation, Slide 2, Funding – Operating Funding, bulleted item entitled “Operating subsidy based on each county’s share of morning boardings” and asked why getting off the train is not just as important as getting on the train, particularly in terms of funding.    Member Curtis queried if it was a political decision.  Mr. Connolly noted that it was a political decision made in 1992, and it was based on morning boardings and the three parties involved agreed to it at that time.  He indicated that the PAC Subcommittee raised the issue, but that there has not been any analysis done regarding the issue.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received a presentation on the Caltrain Capital Needs Study. 

Caltrans’ Near Term Pavement Maintenance Projects on State Routes in Santa Clara County

Val Ignacio, P.E., Chief, Project Study Report Branch 3, Caltrans, directed attention to the chart distributed entitled “Caltrans District 4 – Pavement Rehabilitation and Storm Damage Projects in Santa Clara County” and map entitled “Santa Clara County Project Locations.”

Mr. Ignacio directed attention to the chart entitled “Caltrans District 4 – Pavement Rehabilitation and Storm Damage Projects in Santa Clara County” and provided a brief overview, highlighting the Pavement Projects and Storm Damage Projects in Santa Clara County.   He indicated that the 14 pavement projects reflected in the chart totaled approximately $46 million.   Mr. Ignacio directed attention to the column heading  entitled “Program” and noted the projects in the Roadway Rehabilitation Program, Pavement Preservation Program, and HM Program.  He indicated that Caltrans developed the projects based upon funding sources.  The projects in the Roadway Rehabilitation and Pavement Preservation Programs are primarily State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funded projects.  The projects in the HM Program are primarily Caltrans maintenance funded projects. 

Robert Camagro, P.E., Chief, Pavement Maintenance Branch, Caltrans, directed attention to the Pavement Projects contained in the chart and provided a report on the project locations, the type of work to be done and/or being done, and the status of each project.

Member Armendariz queried about the criteria used to determine whether a hot-mix asphalt or rubberized asphalt should be used and if cost was a factor.    Mr. Camagro noted that cost is a big consideration and that politically, Caltrans is under pressure from the Legislature to use more rubberized asphalt.

Member Armendariz queried if there was a similar spreadsheet containing information on state route projects, such as Highway 237 – Calaveras Boulevard in the City of Milpitas.   Mr. Ignacio noted that the information was available on Caltrans’ Website.

Mr. Burns queried about the type of work to be done on Highway 152 between U.S. 101 and Highway 156.   Mr. Camagro indicated that the type of work currently being done is fixing potholes and noted that Caltrans would be looking at pavement preservation and overlay for the route in the next SHOPP cycle.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received a presentation on Caltrans’ Near Term Pavement Maintenance Projects on State Routes in Santa Clara County. 

Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) Demonstration Program

Michael Hursh, Deputy Director of Operations Maintenance, directed attention to the presentation entitled “Zero Emission Bus (ZEB)-Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Bus - 2006 Progress Report,” and provided an overview, highlighting: 1) Goals and objectives; 2) VTA ZEB Demonstration Program; 3) Program Milestones; 4) Training Completed; 5) Community Education & Outreach; 6) Fuel-Cell Bus Performance; 7) Challenges; 8) Fueling Station Performance; 9) Maintenance Bays; 10) Cost/Reliability Comparison; 11) Project Budget; 12) Expenditures; and 13) Next Steps.

Mr. Hursh introduced one of the staff persons responsible for the success of the ZEB Program, Art Douwes, Project Manager.

Mr. Burns referred to some of the cost issues related to the ZEB and indicated that VTA is participating in a pilot program and has purchased only three ZEBs, so there are a lot of efficiencies that one would get through a larger fleet that are obviously not seen as part of the pilot program.   He indicated that as the technology matures, the cost will decrease.

Member Likens indicated that the range of the ZEB is about half of a conventional bus and asked how does VTA feel about deploying more ZEBs in its fleet in the future.   Mr. Hursh noted that it is certainly a challenge, and it is also a challenge that VTA sees on some of the smaller capacity vehicles that the industry is exploring.  He indicated that he thinks for this to be a viable technology, the range of the ZEB would have to be extended.

Alternate Member Collen expressed concerned about fire hazards pertaining to the ZEB.   Mr. Hursh indicated that the ZEB emits an odorless, colorless vapor and the alarms are sensitive, so VTA’s operation has been interrupted because of false alarms.  There has not been an accident in the transit industry involving a hydrogen fuel-cell bus.

Upon query of Member Witthaus, Mr. Hursh noted that VTA’s diesel fleet is much cleaner than it was approximately 15 years ago.   He also indicated that VTA is a member of the Sustainable Silicon Valley, working with industry and other government partnerships in the area, to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Mr. Hursh noted that VTA has a ZEB on the San Jose City Hall site and that TAC would have an opportunity to tour the ZEB after the meeting has adjourned.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee received a presentation on the Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) Demonstration Program.                

OTHER

Committee Work Plan

Mr. Lawson noted the potential addition of an item to the Committee Work Plan regarding establishing a TAC Workshop Meeting to discuss ways to improve communication between TAC and the Board of Directors.  He also recommended that staff and TAC work together to come up with future agenda items.

Chairperson Yoshino requested that the issue of “how TAC can become more effective in the process” be agendized for the July 13, 2006 TAC Meeting.

Chairperson Yoshino directed attention to the Committee Work Plan, “City Transportation Presentations to the PAC” item, and requested that the item be removed from the Committee Work Plan.

Upon query of Member Curtis, Member Likens noted that the City of Palo Alto’s presentation to PAC was well received.  Mr. Lawson noted that PAC Chairperson, Steve Glickman, made a presentation to the Board of Directors recapping the City of Palo Alto presentation made to PAC.

Chairperson Yoshino requested that TAC receive a copy of the City of Sunnyvale presentation that will be provided to PAC.

On order of Chairperson Yoshino, there being no objection, the Committee Work Plan was reviewed. 

Announcements

Stephen Flynn, Sr. Management Analyst, announced that VTA has not yet received notification from the following cities/county indicating their appointments to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to become effective on July 1, 2006: 1) Los Gatos, 2) Milpitas, 3) Mountain View, 4) Santa Clara, 5) County of Santa Clara, and 6) Sunnyvale.

Mr. Lawson reiterated that the ZEB was located on the San Jose City Hall site for the TAC Members to tour and that parking validation was available.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson   Yoshino, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 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.