From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Monday April 1 2019 1124 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA AprilMay 2019 Take-One is now available
VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members
The AprilMay 2019 Take-One is now available Please click on the link below
httpvtaorgcontents3-us-west-1amazonawscomSite_ContentTake20One_Finalpdf
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
Conserve paper Think before you print
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Monday April 1 2019 300 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information Addendum to the April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
Importance High
VTA Board of Directors
Please see attached Addendum (Item 91BX ndash Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation) to the April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
You may also view the Addendum to the Agenda by clicking on our website here
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680
Conserve paper Think before you print
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday April 4 2019
530 pm
Board of Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street San Jose California
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
91BX Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation [Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Sharks Sports amp Entertainment LLC v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 18-CV-327687)
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Wednesday April 3 2019 344 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information - April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Materials
VTA Board of Directors
Attached you will find the following Agenda Items for the April 4 2019 Board of Directors
meeting attached and on our website via the link below
bull Revised Agenda Item 62 ndash Board Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7 2019
bull Revised Agenda Item 616 ndash FY 2020 and FY 2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding
Proposal Memo
bull Agenda Item 84D ndash Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
The following PowerPoint presentations can now be viewed on our website via the link below
bull Agenda Item 71 ndash VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and a Look Ahead
for 2019
bull Agenda Item 72 ndash Santa Clara-San Benito Mobility Partnership and SR 152 Trade
Corridor Project
bull Agenda Item 81B ndash BART Silicon Valley Program Update
You may review the entire packet with the revised items on our website
Thank you
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
boardsecretaryvtaorg (e-mail)
(408) 3215680 (telephone)
(408) 9550891 (fax)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday March 7 2019
MINUTES
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityrsquos (VTA) Board of
Directors (Board) was called to order by Chairperson OrsquoNeill at 533 pm in the Board of
Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Joseacute
California
11 ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
Elaine Baltao VTA Board Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Alternate
Board Member Marie Blankley
12 ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Alternate Board Member Present
Larry Carr Board Member Present
Magdalena Carrasco Board Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
David Cortese Board Member Present
Dev Davis Alternate Board Member Present
Lan Diep Board Member Present
Susan Ellenberg Alternate Board Member Absent
Adrian Fine Alternate Board Member Absent
Glenn Hendricks Alternate Board Member Present
Chappie Jones Board Member Absent
Sam Liccardo Board Member Present
John McAlister Board Member Present
Howard Miller Alternate Board Member Present
Teresa OrsquoNeill Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Board Member Present
Rob Rennie Board Member Absent
Rich Tran Board Member Present
Jeannie Bruins Ex-Officio Member Present
Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member
A quorum was present
13 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance commenced
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Monday April 1 2019 300 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information Addendum to the April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
Importance High
VTA Board of Directors
Please see attached Addendum (Item 91BX ndash Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation) to the April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
You may also view the Addendum to the Agenda by clicking on our website here
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680
Conserve paper Think before you print
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday April 4 2019
530 pm
Board of Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street San Jose California
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
91BX Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation [Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Sharks Sports amp Entertainment LLC v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 18-CV-327687)
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Wednesday April 3 2019 344 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information - April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Materials
VTA Board of Directors
Attached you will find the following Agenda Items for the April 4 2019 Board of Directors
meeting attached and on our website via the link below
bull Revised Agenda Item 62 ndash Board Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7 2019
bull Revised Agenda Item 616 ndash FY 2020 and FY 2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding
Proposal Memo
bull Agenda Item 84D ndash Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
The following PowerPoint presentations can now be viewed on our website via the link below
bull Agenda Item 71 ndash VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and a Look Ahead
for 2019
bull Agenda Item 72 ndash Santa Clara-San Benito Mobility Partnership and SR 152 Trade
Corridor Project
bull Agenda Item 81B ndash BART Silicon Valley Program Update
You may review the entire packet with the revised items on our website
Thank you
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
boardsecretaryvtaorg (e-mail)
(408) 3215680 (telephone)
(408) 9550891 (fax)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday March 7 2019
MINUTES
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityrsquos (VTA) Board of
Directors (Board) was called to order by Chairperson OrsquoNeill at 533 pm in the Board of
Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Joseacute
California
11 ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
Elaine Baltao VTA Board Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Alternate
Board Member Marie Blankley
12 ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Alternate Board Member Present
Larry Carr Board Member Present
Magdalena Carrasco Board Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
David Cortese Board Member Present
Dev Davis Alternate Board Member Present
Lan Diep Board Member Present
Susan Ellenberg Alternate Board Member Absent
Adrian Fine Alternate Board Member Absent
Glenn Hendricks Alternate Board Member Present
Chappie Jones Board Member Absent
Sam Liccardo Board Member Present
John McAlister Board Member Present
Howard Miller Alternate Board Member Present
Teresa OrsquoNeill Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Board Member Present
Rob Rennie Board Member Absent
Rich Tran Board Member Present
Jeannie Bruins Ex-Officio Member Present
Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member
A quorum was present
13 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance commenced
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday April 4 2019
530 pm
Board of Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street San Jose California
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
91BX Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation [Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Sharks Sports amp Entertainment LLC v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 18-CV-327687)
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Wednesday April 3 2019 344 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information - April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Materials
VTA Board of Directors
Attached you will find the following Agenda Items for the April 4 2019 Board of Directors
meeting attached and on our website via the link below
bull Revised Agenda Item 62 ndash Board Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7 2019
bull Revised Agenda Item 616 ndash FY 2020 and FY 2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding
Proposal Memo
bull Agenda Item 84D ndash Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
The following PowerPoint presentations can now be viewed on our website via the link below
bull Agenda Item 71 ndash VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and a Look Ahead
for 2019
bull Agenda Item 72 ndash Santa Clara-San Benito Mobility Partnership and SR 152 Trade
Corridor Project
bull Agenda Item 81B ndash BART Silicon Valley Program Update
You may review the entire packet with the revised items on our website
Thank you
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
boardsecretaryvtaorg (e-mail)
(408) 3215680 (telephone)
(408) 9550891 (fax)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday March 7 2019
MINUTES
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityrsquos (VTA) Board of
Directors (Board) was called to order by Chairperson OrsquoNeill at 533 pm in the Board of
Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Joseacute
California
11 ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
Elaine Baltao VTA Board Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Alternate
Board Member Marie Blankley
12 ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Alternate Board Member Present
Larry Carr Board Member Present
Magdalena Carrasco Board Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
David Cortese Board Member Present
Dev Davis Alternate Board Member Present
Lan Diep Board Member Present
Susan Ellenberg Alternate Board Member Absent
Adrian Fine Alternate Board Member Absent
Glenn Hendricks Alternate Board Member Present
Chappie Jones Board Member Absent
Sam Liccardo Board Member Present
John McAlister Board Member Present
Howard Miller Alternate Board Member Present
Teresa OrsquoNeill Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Board Member Present
Rob Rennie Board Member Absent
Rich Tran Board Member Present
Jeannie Bruins Ex-Officio Member Present
Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member
A quorum was present
13 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance commenced
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Wednesday April 3 2019 344 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Information - April 4 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Materials
VTA Board of Directors
Attached you will find the following Agenda Items for the April 4 2019 Board of Directors
meeting attached and on our website via the link below
bull Revised Agenda Item 62 ndash Board Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7 2019
bull Revised Agenda Item 616 ndash FY 2020 and FY 2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding
Proposal Memo
bull Agenda Item 84D ndash Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
The following PowerPoint presentations can now be viewed on our website via the link below
bull Agenda Item 71 ndash VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and a Look Ahead
for 2019
bull Agenda Item 72 ndash Santa Clara-San Benito Mobility Partnership and SR 152 Trade
Corridor Project
bull Agenda Item 81B ndash BART Silicon Valley Program Update
You may review the entire packet with the revised items on our website
Thank you
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
boardsecretaryvtaorg (e-mail)
(408) 3215680 (telephone)
(408) 9550891 (fax)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday March 7 2019
MINUTES
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityrsquos (VTA) Board of
Directors (Board) was called to order by Chairperson OrsquoNeill at 533 pm in the Board of
Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Joseacute
California
11 ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
Elaine Baltao VTA Board Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Alternate
Board Member Marie Blankley
12 ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Alternate Board Member Present
Larry Carr Board Member Present
Magdalena Carrasco Board Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
David Cortese Board Member Present
Dev Davis Alternate Board Member Present
Lan Diep Board Member Present
Susan Ellenberg Alternate Board Member Absent
Adrian Fine Alternate Board Member Absent
Glenn Hendricks Alternate Board Member Present
Chappie Jones Board Member Absent
Sam Liccardo Board Member Present
John McAlister Board Member Present
Howard Miller Alternate Board Member Present
Teresa OrsquoNeill Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Board Member Present
Rob Rennie Board Member Absent
Rich Tran Board Member Present
Jeannie Bruins Ex-Officio Member Present
Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member
A quorum was present
13 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance commenced
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday March 7 2019
MINUTES
1 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityrsquos (VTA) Board of
Directors (Board) was called to order by Chairperson OrsquoNeill at 533 pm in the Board of
Supervisorsrsquo Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Joseacute
California
11 ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
Elaine Baltao VTA Board Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Alternate
Board Member Marie Blankley
12 ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Marie Blankley Alternate Board Member Present
Larry Carr Board Member Present
Magdalena Carrasco Board Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
David Cortese Board Member Present
Dev Davis Alternate Board Member Present
Lan Diep Board Member Present
Susan Ellenberg Alternate Board Member Absent
Adrian Fine Alternate Board Member Absent
Glenn Hendricks Alternate Board Member Present
Chappie Jones Board Member Absent
Sam Liccardo Board Member Present
John McAlister Board Member Present
Howard Miller Alternate Board Member Present
Teresa OrsquoNeill Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Board Member Present
Rob Rennie Board Member Absent
Rich Tran Board Member Present
Jeannie Bruins Ex-Officio Member Present
Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member
A quorum was present
13 Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance commenced
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 2 of 12
14 Orders of the Day
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted the following 1) Agenda Item 25 Resolution of
Commendation for Steve Heminger Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) was on the dais and the public table and
2) Revised Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors has been revised to reflect the removal
of the word ldquonegotiaterdquo in the recommendation language and is also on the dais and
public table
MSC (LiccardoChavez) to accept the Orders of the Day
RESULT ACCEPTED ndash Agenda Item 14
MOVER Sam Liccardo Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister
Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
2 AWARDS AND COMMENDATION
The Agenda was taken out of order
25 Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
MSC (CorteseChavez) to adopt Resolution of Commendation No
20190306 for Steve Heminger upon his retirement as the Executive Director of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 25
MOVER Dave Cortese Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Cortese Davis Diep Liccardo McAlister Miller
OrsquoNeill Peralez Rennie
NOES None
ABSENT Carrasco
NOTE MSC MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 3 of 12
21 2018 Employees of the Year
The Board recognized Mimi Nguyen Office and Timekeeping Technician Cerone
Office and Harinderpal Singh Coach Operator at Chaboya Operations as
Employees of the Year for 2018
Board Member Carrasco arrived and took her seat at 538 pm
22 Special Recognition of VTA Employees
The Board recognized the following employees for their critical roles that helped
lead to the arrest of a man wanted on an FBI felony warrant Coach Operators Juan
Balleza and Michael Grenz
23 Present Resolution of Appreciation to Outgoing Board Member
Johnny Khamis
Outgoing Board Member Johnny Khamis was unable to attend the meeting
24 Community Partnership Recognition
The Board recognized Meggan Powers Family Supportive Housing Board
Chairperson for being a valued community partner not only to VTA but to the
many families in Santa Clara County
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun expressed concern about autonomous vehicles
3 PUBLIC COMMENT
The following Members of the Public commented on the proposed new 2019 Transit
Service Plan
bull Angi Dixon VTA Information Services Representative
bull Monica Mallon Interested Citizen
bull Jake Tonkel Interested Citizen
bull Andrew Boone Interested Citizen
bull Scott Lorgan Interested Citizen
bull Cole Cameron Interested Citizen
bull Nassim Nouri Interested Citizen
bull Gary Interested Citizen
bull Interested Citizen
James Wightman Interested Citizen commented on the following 1) light rail safety and
security 2) increase light rail speed 3) light rail venting process 4) BART service to San
Jose and 5) suggested placement of closed circuit television (CCTV) on light rail
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 4 of 12
Roland Lebrun Interested Citizen referenced a recent light rail incident where a bus bridge
was initiated and suggested buses intersecting with a bus bridge should be rerouted to
intervene and assist
Blair Beekman Interested Citizen expressed support for the public process
Joyce OrsquoNeil Interested Citizen expressed concern with decreased paratransit service
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings
5 COMMITTEE REPORTS
51 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Chairpersonrsquos report was contained in the Board Membersrsquo reading folders
and placed on the public table
52 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairpersonrsquos Report
Glenn Hendricks Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson provided a
report on the items discussed at the February 8 2019 PAC meeting
53 Standing Committee Chairpersonsrsquo Report
Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee Chairperson
Peralez provided a report on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 CMPP
Committee meeting
Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee Chairperson Carr provided a report
on the items discussed at the February 21 2019 AampF Committee meeting
Safety Security and Transit Planning and Operations (SSTPO) Committee Vice
Chairperson Chavez provided a report on the items discussed at the
February 22 2019 SSTPO Committee meeting
Capital Program Committee (CPC) Chairperson Sam Liccardo provided a report on
the items discussed at the February 28 2019 CPC meeting
Governance amp Audit (GampA) Committee Chairperson OrsquoNeill provided a report on
the items discussed at the March 7 2019 GampA Committee meeting
54 Policy Advisory Board Chairpersonsrsquo Report
State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Chairperson McAlister
provided a report on the items discussed at the February 25 2019 PAB meeting
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 5 of 12
6 CONSENT AGENDA
Alternate Board Member Miller referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft 2016 Measure B
Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework and expressed
concern with the percentage attributed to Innovative Mobility Models amp Programs
Public Comment
Mr Boone commented on the following 1) requested the Board take public comment before
voting on the consent calendar 2) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and
encouraged VTA to lead an effort to encourage a citystate Transit Signal Priority Policy
and 3) expressed support for Agenda Item 65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors and encouraged VTA to continue to study how
to speed up transit on El Camino Real
Mr Beekman made the following comments 1) referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit
Speed Policy and opposed increasing speeds and 2) referenced Agenda Item 63 Draft
2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Framework
and noted funding for fares is vital
Mr Wightman commented on the following 1) suggested safety ldquoVentingrdquo for light rail
tracks in downtown San Jose and 2) commencement of BART service
Ex-Officio Jeannie Bruins referenced Agenda Item 62 Transit Speed Policy and noted
the report states ldquoultimately the success of the policy depends on the on-going cooperation
support and partnership from VTA and local jurisdictions or other partnersrdquo She requested
staff consider how VTA can proactively build awareness and education in local
jurisdictions
61 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Minutes of February 7 2019
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve the Board of Directors Regular Meeting
Minutes of February 7 2019
62 Transit Speed Policy
MSC (CarrPeralez) approve a Transit Speed Policy for VTA
63 Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
MSC (CarrPeralez) to approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure
B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 6 of 12
64 Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with
Itech Solution the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$810810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract
65 Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
MSC (CarrPeralez) to authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed
Price contract with Fehr amp Peers to complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors The contract shall be for a period of 18 months and not
to exceed $800000
RESULT ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] ndash Agenda Items 61 ndash 65
MOVER Larry Carr Board Member
SECONDER Raul Peralez Board Member
AYES Carr Carrasco Cortese Chavez Davis Diep Liccardo
McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez Tran
NOES None
ABSENT None
7 REGULAR AGENDA
Administration and Finance Committee
71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused themselves from
Agenda Item 71 Blossom Hill Station Joint Development ndash Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement
Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo left their seats at 642 pm
Ron Golem Deputy Director Real Estate introduced Kelly Snider Project
Management Consultant Mr Golem provided the staff report and a presentation
entitled ldquoBlossom Hill Station Developer Selectionrdquo highlighting 1) VTArsquos
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy Goals 2) Cityrsquos ldquoSignature Projectrdquo
Requirements 3) Blossom Hill Request for Proposals (RFP) Preparation 4) VTA
Goals and RFP Requirements 5) RFP Outreach and Publicity 6) One proposal
received by November 2 2018 deadline 7) Proposed Program and Uses 8) GRBH
Proposed Site Plan 9) Proposed Financial Terms 10) VTA Review Panel
Recommendations and 11) Administration amp Finance Committee
recommendations
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 7 of 12
Board Member McAlister left his seat at 649 pm
Board Member McAlister returned to his seat at 651 pm
Members of the Board and staff discussed the following 1) parking concerns
2) shared amenities 3) research encourages integration of market rate units with
affordable units 4) consider financing and the use of grant funding for affordable
housing 5) capture Administration and Finance (AampF) Committee
recommendations 6) encourage safety and open public space 7) pedestrian
circulation 8) consider adding photovoltaic solar panels or a tree canopy and
9) use of Measure A funds
Members of the Board made the following requests and recommendations
1) requested a mid-point closed session check-in to keep Board members apprised
of negotiations 2) provide clear performance benchmarks with the ability for VTA
to withdraw from the agreement if timelines are not met 3) provide stronger
assessment of the number of affordable housing units for the project and
4) provide long term revenue opportunities
MSC (PeralezChavez) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 3 recusals to authorize
the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA)
with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban
Properties Swenson and EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and
conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at
the Blossom Hill Station Board Members Carrasco Cortese and Liccardo recused
RESULT ADOPTED ndash Agenda Item 71
MOVER Raul Peralez Board Member
SECONDER Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson
AYES Carr Chavez Davis Diep McAlister Miller OrsquoNeill Peralez
Tran
NOES None
ABSENT Non
RECUSED Carrasco Cortese Liccardo
Board Members Carrasco and Liccardo returned to their seats at 711 pm
8 OTHER ITEMS
81 General Manager Report
Nuria I Fernandez General ManagerCEO provided a report highlighting the
following
bull Release of the 2018 VTA Annual Report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 8 of 12
bull On February 25 2019 VTA won first place in the American Public
Transportation Association AdWheel Award for its Destinations Campaign
bull Outreach efforts for the Draft 2019 New Transit Service Plan
bull On March 8 2019 VTA in partnership with Caltrans held a
groundbreaking event for Phase 3 of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes
Project and on March 22nd at 1030 am at the Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale
Parking lot VTA along with partners Caltrans and the City of Sunnyvale
will celebrate the Mathilda Avenue improvements of SR 237 and US 101
bull VTA launched a carpool promotion with Waze and Scoop to reduce solo
driving
bull VTA will participate in the American Public Transportation Associationrsquos
(APTA) National Get on Board Day on April 25 2019 which is dedicated
to increasing support and utilization of Public Transit
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer provided the February 2019 Ridership report
Angelique Gaeta Chief of System Safety amp Security provided an update on
System Safety and Security
Board Member Cortese returned to his seat at 724 pm
81A Government Affairs Report
Ms Fernandez noted that the Government Affairs Update was in the Board
Membersrsquo reading folders and public binder
Public Comment
Mr Boon encouraged the Board to support legislation for cameras used at
traffic signalsspeeding cameras to help reduce traffic speed
81B Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
Dennis Ratcliffe Deputy Director SVRTBART Capital Program
introduced Jorge Martinez Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Project Manager Bechtel They provided a brief report on Phase I and Phase
II of the BART Silicon Valley Program
bull VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communities Update
Mr Golem and Jill Gibson Consultant provided a presentation entitled
ldquoVTArsquos BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ndash Creating
Transit-Oriented Communitiesrdquo highlighting 1) Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOCs) and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) ndash
Defined 2) VTArsquos BART Silicon Valley and TOCs 3) TOD Strategy
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 9 of 12
Study 4) City and Agency Engagement 5) Stakeholder Engagement
6) Study Phases 7) Potential for TOD (2018-2040) 8) Study Outcome
and 9) Next Steps
Public Comment
Omar Chatty Interested City commented on the following 1) requested
staff measure the goals they are attempting to reach with the TOD 2) use
prior TOD experience to leverage a better solution and 3) evaluate
emergency services which will be necessary with the higher density
Mr Lebrun made the following comments 1) avoid Diridon Station and
2) study Stevens Creek Corridor including potential station locations
Members of the Board made the following comments 1) expressed
appreciation for staffrsquos work and 2) expressed interest in the
opportunity for increased TODs in Downtown San Jose
Board Members Diep and Peralez left their seats at 802 pm
Board Member Cortese left the meeting at 802 pm
82 Chairpersonrsquos Report
Chairperson OrsquoNeill reported on the discussions held at the February 22 2019
Board of Directors workshop on the future of transportation in Santa Clara County
Board Members Diep and Peralez returned to their seats at 807 pm
83 ITEMS OF CONCERN AND REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION
Board Member McAlister made the following referrals 1) referenced the ldquoPriority
Casardquo discussion noting the need to develop and lobby for a policy that ensures
transportation dollars are not shifted to housing 2) requested the ldquo2021 Proposed
Capital Projects Budgetrdquo be presented to the Board soon and 3) referenced the
upcoming Capital Projects Committee (CPC) meeting and requested project
alternatives be presented for the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector (EBRC)
project
Vice Chairperson Chavez requested staff outline the process the Board uses for
projects and include decision points made along the way
84 Unapproved MinutesSummary Reports from VTA Committees Joint
Powers Boards (JPB) and Regional Commissions
84A VTA Standing Committees
bull Capital Program Committee - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 10 of 12
bull Governance and Audit (GampA) Committee ndash The February 7 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee -
The February 21 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the
Reading Folder
bull Administration amp Finance (AampF) Committee - The February 21 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Reading Folder
bull Safety Security and Transit Planning amp Operations (SSTPampO)
Committee - The February 22 2019 Minutes were accepted as
contained in the Reading Folder
84B VTA Advisory Committees
bull Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The February 13 2019
Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens
Watchdog Committee (CWC) - The February 13 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - The
February 13 2019 Minutes were accepted as contained in the Agenda
Packet
bull Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) -
There was no report
bull Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - The February 14 2019 Minutes
were accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
84C VTA Policy Advisory Boards (PAB)
bull Eastridge to BART Regional Connector PAB (formerly Downtown
East Valley PAB) - There was no report
bull State Route 85 Corridor PAB - The February 25 2019 Minutes were
accepted as contained in the Agenda Packet
bull Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board - There was no report
84D Joint and Regional Commissions
bull Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - The March 7 2019
Summary Notes were accepted as contained on the dais
bull Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority - There was no report
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 11 of 12
bull Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Committee - There was no report
bull Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - There was no
report
bull Sunol Smart Carpool Lane Joint Powers Authority - There was no
report
bull Sunol SR 152 Mobility Partnership - There was no report
Public Comment
Mr Beekman referenced Agenda Item 84A VTA Standing Committees
specifically the CPC minutes and expressed technology concerns He also
referenced the public comments he made at the February 22 2019 SSTPO meeting
85 Announcements
Board Member McAlister announced his upcoming trip to Washington DC
Department of Transportation to discuss transportation topics
9 CLOSED SESSION
91 Recess to Closed Session at 821 pm
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
92 Reconvene to Open Session at 838 pm
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday March 07 2019
Page 12 of 12
93 Closed Session Report
A Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
[Government Code Section 549569(d)(1)]
Name of Case Maresca v Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority et
al (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 17-CV-313783)
Evelynn Tran General Counsel noted no reportable action was taken
during closed session
B Conference with Labor Negotiators
[Government Code Section 549576]
VTA Designated Representatives
Alberto Lara Director of Business Services
Bob Escobar Negotiator
Raj Srinath Chief Financial Officer
Inez Evans Chief Operating Officer
Employee Organizations
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265
Ms Tran noted no reportable action was taken during closed session
10 ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson OrsquoNeill and there being no objection the meeting was
adjourned at 838 pm
Respectfully submitted
Anita McGraw Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Date April 1 2019
Current Meeting March 28 2019
Board Meeting April 42019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityCapital Program Committee
THROUGH General Manager Nuria I Fernandez
FROM Director - Planning amp Programming Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT FY2020 and FY2021 2016 Measure B Program Funding Proposal
Policy-Related Action No Government Code Section 84308 Applies No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
BACKGROUND
On November 8 2016 the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote Measure B a 30-year frac12 cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services The 2016 Measure B lists and describes the following nine program categories and corresponding amounts
Program Category Amount (in 2017 Dollars)Local Streets amp Roads $12 Billion
BART Phase II $15 Billion
Bicycle amp Pedestrian $250 Million
Caltrain Grade Separations $700 Million
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements $314 Million
Highway Interchanges $750 Million
County Expressways $750 Million
SR 85 Corridor $350 Million
Transit Operations $500 Million
Capped at 25 of Program Tax Revenue
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 2 of 8
The frac12 cent sales tax collection began on April 1 2017 The validity of the Measure was challenged in court and funds were held in escrow until January 30 2019 when all appeals were exhausted and the Measure was upheld
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs as part of its FY2018 and FY2019 budget adoption on June 1 2017 These appropriations remain available to the projects and programs and do not expire at the end of the fiscal year
FY2018 amp FY2019 Adopted 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY18 FY19Administrative Costs 330 330
Program AreaFORMULA BASED
Local Streets amp Roads 5000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1350 1350
Innovative Transit Models
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
NEED CAPACITY BASED
BART Phase II 000
Caltrain Grade Separation 700
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 630
SR 85 Corridor 1200
County Expressways 5000
Highway Interchanges 8700
Total 30886
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors appropriate 2016 Measure B funds for projects and programs in the following 2016 Measure B program categories for FY2020 and FY2021
Proposed FY2020 amp FY2021 2016 Measure B Budget ($ Millions)
FY20 FY21Administrative Costs 330 330
Program CategoryLocal Streets amp Roads 4000 4000
Transit OperationsEnhance Core Network 1200 1200
Innovative Transit Models 150 150
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares 250 250
Improve Amenities 130
Bicycle amp PedestrianEducationEncouragement 250
Capital Projects 1333
Planning Projects 083
BART Phase II 15000
Caltrain Grade Separation 3100
Caltrain Corridor Capacity 250
SR 85 Corridor 250
County Expressways 000
Highway Interchanges 11990
Total $44246
Administration
The VTA Board appropriated a total of $66 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budgets Of that amount $165 million was reimbursed to the Transit Enterprise fund for the cost of the ballot measure Approximately $400000 has been expended on VTA labor for development of the 2016 Measure B program since the election As the 2016 Measure B Program is in its infancy and to account for unforeseen activities staff recommends that the VTA Board continue $33 million annual appropriations for FY2020 and FY2021 for administration and oversight of the Program
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 4 of 8
Local Streets and Roads
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $90 million in the FY2018 and FY2019 budget to be distributed to the cities and the County for roadway maintenance rehabilitation and complete streets activities $40 million was allocated for each fiscal year with the remaining $10 million being an estimate for a one-time advance to be distributed to the cities and County based on collections between April 1 2017 through June 30 2017 VTA staff recommend continued appropriation of $40 million in FY2020 and in FY2021 for this purpose This would result in a total Local Streets and Roads appropriation of $170 million for the four-year period
BART Phase II
No appropriation was requested or made for FY2018 or FY2019 A total of $150 million is requested for pre-construction activities for FY2020 and FY2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The VTA Board appropriated $167 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommends appropriating an additional $167 million for FY2020 and FY2021 If approved the total four-year appropriation would be $333 million
Caltrain Grade Separations
The VTA Board appropriated $7 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this program category VTA staff recommend appropriating an additional $31 million for the FY2020 and FY2021 cycle This would result in a total appropriation of $38 million VTArsquos Caltrain Grade Separation Implementation Plan will require $1 million The $37 million balance will be available for cities to advance their project activities
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
The VTA Board of Directors approved $63 million for FY2018 amp FY2019 $20 million as part of the FY2018 and FY2019 adoption and an additional $43 million in June 2018 Of this allocation $43 million is for the locomotive overhaul capital project led by Caltrain without which increased service to South County cannot occur An additional $750000 will be used to begin a South County Rail Study that will study potential options for enhanced transit service specifically heavy rail service down to south county and will include Caltrain Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Capital Corridor the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) the California State Transportation Agency (CALSTA) and the cities of Gilroy Morgan Hill and San Jose
The balance of the FY18FY19 allocation and a staff recommended allocation of $25 million for FY2020 amp FY2021 for work on the San Jose Diridon Station Plan brings the total appropriation of this program category for FY18 through FY20 to $88 million
Highway Interchanges
The VTA Board appropriated $87 million in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle for this
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 5 of 8
program category VTA staff are recommending an additional $1199 in appropriation for the FY2020 and FY2021 budget years Two projects in the FY2020 amp FY2021 request the US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expressway Interchange Improvements Project and the Charcot Avenue Overcrossing Project are not fully funded for construction VTA will work with the City of San Jose to secure the needed funds to complete construction Attachment A provides a complete listing of projects with currently approved and recommended additional appropriation
County Expressways
The VTA Board appropriated $50 million for Expressways in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle Implementation priorities for the program category are determined by the County of Santa Clara County Roads and Airports is currently developing an implementation plan VTA and County Roads staff agree that the existing appropriation is sufficient for activities likely to occur in the next two years The Countyrsquos priority project listing will be presented to the VTA Board at a future meeting No additional appropriation is recommended for this budget cycle
SR 85 Corridor
The VTA Board of Directors appropriated $12 million for this program in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle VTA staff are conducting a transit alternatives study for the corridor The cost to complete the study is estimated to be $14 million The remaining $106 million is allocated to the implementation of the five noise mitigation pilot projects identified by the SR85 Noise Abatement Study Once the transit guideway study is complete initial planning and feasibility analysis for the improvements that may emerge from the transit guideway study will need to be conducted VTA staff recommends $25 million for the 2020 amp 2021 fiscal years for these efforts
Transit Operations
The VTA Board appropriated $333 million for this category in the FY2018 amp FY2019 budget cycle and the Board further refined the distribution at its October 2017 meeting VTA staff recommends appropriating the same amount and continuing with the same distribution for FY2020 and FY2021
Transit Operations ($ Millions)
Previous New
Transit Operations Sub-category FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21Total FY18 -
FY21
Enhance Core Network $12 $12 $12 $12 $480
Innovative Transit $15 $15 $15 $15 $60
Expand Mobility amp Affordable Fares $25 $25 $25 $25 $100
Improve Amenities $13 $13 $26
Totals $333 $333 $666
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 6 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
The VTA Board may appropriate different amounts
FISCAL IMPACT
If the Board adopts the program as recommended $44246 million in 2016 Measure B funds will be appropriated for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Brief discussion was had on how to access currently available funds for the Local Streets and Roads BicyclePedestrian Education amp Encouragement and Highway Interchanges Program Categories A TAC member requested that the Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program be retroactive to include expenses beginning July 2019 should a project be awarded funding Another TAC member requested that reference to the City of Mountain View be removed from the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo as it appeared that other cities were not eligible for the proposed FY20FY21 allocation $31 million
The TAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to remove the reference to the City of Mountain View in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion in the memo
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Clarification was provided on the Noise Abatement Program in the Highway Program Category and the noise abatement pilot projects that will be constructed on SR85 A CAC member requested VTA adopt a policy to separate at-grade crossings throughout the county
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item
The Bicycle amp Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) heard this item at their March 13 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Coordinate projects as best as possible to be cost effect and cause as minimal disruption as possible 2) Update on increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Request VTA to adopt a policy to separate all at-grade crossings 4) The criteria development and scoring process for the BicyclePedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program and 5) Doubling the BicyclePedestrian allocations for the early years
The BPAC with three no-votes recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with an amendment to emphasize funding for the Education amp Encouragement sub-category of the BicyclePedestrian Program Category
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their March 14 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the following 1) Why 2016 Measure B funds were being used on Caltrain locomotive overhauls 2) Schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county 3) Clarification that the Local Streets amp Roads formula would not change 4) Request that language in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category discussion state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 be available for all three eligible cities Staff clarified to the committee that the Board of Directors approved the allocation of 2016 Measure B funds in 2018 for the Caltrain
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 7 of 8
locomotive overhaul project Staff will provide the schedule for increased Caltrain service to south county to the PAC PAC also requested a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds with expected expenditures and funding models for each program categories for future years
The PAC unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the following amendments 1) Provide a roadmap of 2016 Measure B funds 2) Clarify the Caltrain Grade Separation program category discussion to state that funds allocated for FY20FY21 are available for all three eligible cities and 3) Express the strongest opposition to using $43 million of 2016 Measure B funds for the Caltrain Locomotive Overhaul project
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION
The Congestion Management Program amp Planning (CMPP) Committee heard this item at their March 21 2019 meeting Discussion was had on the status and schedule of the five SR 85 Noise Abatement pilot projects A Member of the Committee requested that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised to reflect a project in their jurisdiction Staff stated that the Highway Interchange Program Category would be revised for the Board of Directors meeting as there are currently moving parts to address
The CMPP unanimously recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with the understanding that the Highway Interchange Program Category be revised
The Capital Program Committee (CPC) heard this item at their March 28 2019 meeting A committee member asked if language in the Highway Interchange Program Category section indicated that the City of San Jose would be required to fund any shortfall in construction funding for two projects Staff clarified that the board action neither required that San Jose fund any shortfall nor had VTA staff made any request of San Jose staff beyond mutual cooperation to seek funding for shortfalls Robust discussion was had on the Caltrainrsquos commitment to providing additional service to south county should the previously approved 2016 Measure B funds be used for the Locomotive Overhaul Project Staff reiterated that the Board of Directors approved the use of funds based on Caltrain JPB staffrsquos assurance that the locomotive overhaul is necessary to provide additional south county service There was additional discussion regarding the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category This discussion centered around prioritization of these projects and ensuring that external funding be used as much as possible The Committee requested and staff provided clarification that additional funds were not requested for the County Expressway Program Category for FY20FY21 and that the County is working with staff from the various jurisdictions to develop a prioritization plan was given Finally a CPC member requested that the 2016 Measure B revenues and expenses be reviewed annually
The CPC recommended that the Board of Directors approve this item with four votes and one abstention
Prepared by Jane ShinnMemo No 6894
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
bull MT6894_AttachmentA_Proposed_FY20FY21_HwyProjects (PDF)
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Proposed 2016 Measure B (MB) Highway Interchanges Program FY20 and FY21 Projects and Allocation
ATTACHMENT A DETAILED 2016 MEASURE B HIGHWAY PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
ID Route Project Title
Total Project Cost ($M)
A
Jurisdiction Implementing
Agency
MB FY 18 - FY 19 Appropriation
MB
FY 20 - FY 21 Request
FY 18-21 Total
A 17SR 17 SouthboundHamilton Ave Off-Ramp Widening $20 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
B 17SR 17San Tomas Expressway Interim Improvements $10 Campbell Campbell $10000 $00000 $10000
C AllHwy Transportation Operations SystemFreeway Performance Initiative Phase 1 amp 2 $540 Countywide VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
D AllNoise Abatement Program (Countywide)
$500 Countywide VTA $40000 $00000 $40000
E 280I-280Wolfe Rd Interchange Improvements
$860 Cupertino VTA $60000 $15000 $75000
F 280I-280 Northbound Second Exit Lane to Foothill Expressway $42
Cupertino Los Altos
VTA $35000 $00000 $35000
G 17Highway 17 Corridor Congestion Relief including SR 17SR 9 interchange $500 Los Gatos VTA $00000 $54000 $54000
H 152US 101SR 25 Interchange (ENVPSampE)
$650 Gilroy VTA $20000 $80000 $100000
I 101US 101Buena Vista Ave Interchange Improvements
$350 Gilroy VTA $10000 $00000 $10000
J 237Calaveras Boulevard Widening - Near-term improvements $20 Milpitas VTA $10000 $08000 $18000
K 237SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp at Middlefield Road
$500 Mt View VTA $00000 $40000 $40000
L 101US 101 Interchanges Improvements San Antonio Rd to Charleston RdRengstorff Ave $350
Palo Alto Mt View
VTA $10000 $10000 $20000
M 101US 101 SouthboundTrimble RdDe La Cruz BlvdCentral Expwy Interchange Improvements $600 San Jose VTA $40000 $350000 $390000
N 101Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to Southbound SR 87 $30 San Jose VTA $15000 $10000 $25000
O 101US 101Mabury RdTaylor St Interchange Construction $950 San Jose San Jose $20000 $00000 $20000
P 280I-280Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements
$900 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
Q 87SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements - (SB 87 Charcot On-ramp HOV Bypass) $30 San Jose VTA $10000 $17000 $27000
R 101US 101Zanker RdSkyport DrFourth St Interchange Improvements $1620 San Jose VTA $30000 $60000 $90000
S 101US 101Old Oakland Rd Interchange Improvements
$250 San Jose San Jose $10000 $00000 $10000
T 101US 101Blossom Hill Rd Interchange Improvements
$320 San Jose San Jose $40000 $241000 $281000
U 880Charcot Overcrossing
$500 San Jose San Jose $120000 $250000 $370000
V 237SR 237Mathilda Ave and US 101Mathilda Ave Interchange Improvement + follow-up Landscaping $470 Sunnyvale VTA $340000 $00000 $340000
Highway Program ManagementOversight VTA $00000 $04000 $04000
Totals $870000 $1199000 $20690
NProgrammingAndGrants2016 Measure BAdministrativeFY20FY21_BudgetCopy of Copy of Hwy_Project_List_2016_Envision Sales Tax Measure 2 year budget_Local Contribution_2020‐2021 ver8 Page 1
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Item 84D Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary
Mobility Partnership Committee Meeting Summary At its March 29 2019 meeting the Mobility Partnership Committee
bull Approved the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization Selection of new Chair and Vice Chair o Chair - Larry Carr (City Council Member Morgan Hill Santa Clara County) o Vice Chair - Ignacio Velazquez (Mayor of Hollister San Benito County)
bull Received reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff Discussed that the Mobility Partnership has focused on two
primary goals since its re-inception in 2015 1 Develop the long-term mobility plan for the area taking into account the three previous studies
as well as current plans for southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties 2 Address the existing bottleneck created by the outdated and under capacity US 101SR 25
interchange with near-term improvements that are aligned with and help facilitate the long-term
vision for the interchange as a western terminus for a new alignment of SR 152
bull Received an update the California High Speed Rail (HSR)
bull Received an update on the US 101SR 25 Interchange and Caltrans Region 4 and Region 5
bull Approved Mobility Partnership Work Plan
bull Approved the committee next meeting dates
o Wednesday September 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD o Wednesday December 11 2019 ndash morning Time and location TBD
The Mobility Partnership Committee will next meet on September 11 2019
Time and location TBD
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 836 AM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 4 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday April 4 2019
UberLyft Stealing Transit Ridership (ABC 7 News)
(Link to Video)
Ridesharing services are taking a bite out of public transit on the Peninsula and in the South
Bay Ridership is down between four and five percent for both SamTrans and VTA the Valley
Transportation Authority
If ridership does continue to decline yes maybe some hard decisions will have to be made
said Dan Lieberman a media relations representative at SamTrans
Uber and Lyft may be only part of the reason for the decline
Gas prices have been historically low for the past couple of years said Brandi Childress public
affairs manager at VTA Cost of housing is driving people out of the area and youre not going
to have people taking transit back to the city They need their cars for that
To reverse the decline SamTrans is going to test its own rideshare service in a month or so in
the Linda Mar area of Pacifica It will use shuttle vans which riders can hail using a mobile
phone app SamTrans is calling this new on-demand service microtransit The fare will be
$225
The decline in ridership is not only a Bay Area phenomenon Studies are indicating its
happening across the country
To offset the decline VTAs board next month will look at eliminating low-ridership routes in
favor of boosting service on more heavily used lines On the other hand it sees a potential
boost in ridership when BART comes to San Jose at the end of the year feeding passengers
onto its bus network
Employers are also helping to support public transit as competition increases
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Usually I take public transit said Grant Southwick Its less expensive and my company pays
for it
Would-be transit riders are also being siphoned away by self-propelled modes of
transportation
We see the rise of easily rentable bikes We see scooters popping up all over the place So
change is constant said SamTrans Dan Lieberman
Change or call it disruption if you will can be challenging
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Sent Friday April 5 2019 236 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt
Subject VTA Correspondence Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary Support Letter for Caltrain
Corridor Capacity Improvements
VTA Board of Directors
We are forwarding you the following
Thank you
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N First Street
San Jose CA 95134
4083215680
boardsecretaryvtaorg
From Topic
VTA April 4 2019 Board of Directors Agenda Item 52 ndash
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Summary
Rod Sinks Councilmember
City of Cupertino
Letter of Support for Caltrain Corridor Capacity
Improvements
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Item 52
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
Meeting Summary
On March 14 meeting the PAC
bull Recommended that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the fiscal years 2020 and 2021
Program of 2016 Measure B projects and programs
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors approve reallocation of $1035000 of Local
Program Reserve (LPR) funds from the I-880I-280Stevens Creek Interchange project to
the Silicon Valley Express Lane Program-Phase 5 project
bull Received a report on the analytical techniques used in the Fast Transit Program to
identify VTAs sources of delay
bull Received information on VTA Joint Development Program 2018 Results and A Look
Ahead for 2019
bull Recommended the VTA Board of Directors make available funds not to exceed $50000
per year from the Vehicle Registration Fee Program (VRF) for the County of Santa Clara
to maintain the Countywide Collision Database System with oversight by VTA Systems
Operations and Management Working Group
bull Received the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Highway Program Semi-Annual Report
Ending December 31 2018
bull Received a status report on the Semi-Annual Update of Bicycle Expenditure Program
(BEP) projects
bull Received the FY2019 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report and the
Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for October - December 2018
The next PAC meeting will be held on April 11 2019 at 4 pm in the
VTA Conference Room B-106
3331 North First Street San Jose CA
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From Rod Sinks Sent Thursday April 04 2019 309 PM To VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Cc boardcaltraincom Subject VTA Board Agenda Item 616 - Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements Dear VTA Board Members Please support Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements in item 616 that will help expand transit ridership from south San Jose and South County and to job centers to the north We need to strengthen Caltrain as our most effective backbone transit system with more frequent service Employees at our largest tech companies have a good transit option in private buses For all the rest of us we need to create better service in our major corridors from housing-rich centers to jobs-rich centers Too many folks that make our economy work including teachers and service workers are leaving our area because they cant stand to commute from the places they can afford to live While we work to build more housing in all our cities we must also work on improving backbone transit service Thanks Rod Sinks Councilmember City of Cupertino
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary
Sent Friday April 5 2019 245 PM
To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Board Secretary
ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt
Cc Alaniz Bernice ltBerniceAlanizvtaorggt
Subject From VTA Clarification on the SF Chronicle article ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members The article in todayrsquos San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over financial detailsrdquo At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The Operations and
Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to meet its Revenue Service
date of late 2019 as the Board heard at last nightrsquos meeting The planned meeting between BART and
VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective staff members the opportunity reach
agreement on further details of the complex Operating and Maintenance Agreement proposed between
the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via email VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted with no suitable replacement in place For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not For questions on the Berryessa Extension please contact Bernice Alaniz BART Silicon Valley Director of Business Ops amp Communication at (408) 888-9983
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 253 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt VTA Advisory Committee Members ltVTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembersvtaorggt Subject VTA Releases Final Recommendations for 2019 New Transit Service Plan VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members Please be advised that VTA released the final recommendations for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan (Plan) The Plan will be presented to the Advisory Committees next week and the Board will consider adoption in May 2019 Please see the blog post for background information and summary of the changes httpwwwvtaorgNews-and-MediaConnect-with-VTAVTA-Releases-Final-Recommendations-for-2019-New-Transit-Service-PlanXKfMr1VKipo For questions please reply to this email Thank you Board Secretaryrsquos Office Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street Building B San Jose CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-5680 boardsecretaryvtaorg
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 311 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
2 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
3 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
4 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
From VTA Board Secretary ltBoardSecretaryvtaorggt Sent Friday April 5 2019 456 PM To VTA Board of Directors ltVTABoardofDirectorsvtaorggt Subject From VTA UPDATED - April 5 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday April 5 2019
1 Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business Journal)
2 BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle) 3 BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story) 4 Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
5 BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video) 6 VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose Spotlight)
Chances for early federal funding of BART subway look promising (Business
Journal)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Grouprsquos annual lobbying trip to Washington found positive vibes
mdash but no commitment yet mdash within the Federal Transit Administration for an early OK on the
last $15 billion chunk of funding for BARTrsquos San Jose $56 billion subway project
The agreement between the boards of BART and the Valley Transportation Authority last year
to build a unique mdash for the United States mdash single-bore tunnel beneath Santa Clara Street is
the kind of innovative program that the FTArsquos expedited project delivery pilot program for
capital grants is supposed to encourage
According to Carolyn Gonot VTAs chief engineering and program deliver officer the difference
between expedited delivery and the normal funding process is that the VTA which is applying
for the funding and is in charge of building the subway can apply sooner and receive funding
quicker The total time difference could be as much as two years which means that the long
lead time for ordering the custom-built tunnel boring machine would be easier to
accommodate
Certainty is very important to have when youre working with private-sector partners she
said
But the Trump administration has not been particularly supportive of transportation
infrastructure projects especially those in California Caltrains federal funding application was
nearly turned down just before the approval date after years of work because of a political
squabble involving high-speed rail The administrations proposed transportation infrastructure
budget for the next fiscal year is $1 billion less (19 percent) than this year but its questionable
whether Congress will accept such a reduction
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
ldquoWe had an incredibly positive hour-long session with (acting) FTA Administrator Jane
Williams and FTA Executive Director Matt Welbes along with four key members of their teamrdquo
Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino said in an interview
What made the discussion so positive Guardino said was the fact that the normal funding ratio
of 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent local and state funds for the subway is flipped in the
funding for the subway
Seventy-five percent of the BART project is funded from two sales tax measures passed by
Santa Clara County voters and a $750 million state grant funded from the 2017 gasoline tax
increase that passed the California Legislature
ldquoThat continues to get their attention and gain their appreciationrdquo Guardino said of FTA
officials
BART extension Itrsquos complicated (San Francisco Chronicle)
Riders have waited decades for BART to roll into Silicon Valley Now an ongoing financial
negotiation stands in the way of the opening
The blue Milpitas sign gleams over 19 acres of former industrial hinterland mdash once a truck yard
and storage facility now a vacant steel-and-glass BART station waiting for trains to roll in
Itrsquos the first stop in a Silicon Valley extension that Bay Area residents have wanted for decades
connecting the East Bay to tech jobs and cutting through downtown San Jose where Google is
planning a huge new campus Sixteen miles of track would loop west and then north to wind up
in Santa Clara fulfilling BARTrsquos long-standing dream to build out its map in the South Bay
But the project already a year overdue is facing a complication BART and the Santa Clara
transit agency developing the extension havenrsquot agreed on how to fund the line once a sales tax
expires in 23 years
ldquoBeyond that mdash well thatrsquos what the conversation isrdquo said BART Board President Bevan Dufty
He abruptly canceled a joint meeting of the two agencies last month because they were still
bickering over financial details
BART Assistant General Manager Carl Holmes who is participating in the discussions said ldquowe
think wersquore very closerdquo to resolving the issue
Talks between BART and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have dragged on for
weeks as staff craft an operating and maintenance agreement their board directors must sign
before opening the first segment mdash from Warm Springs to Milpitas then on to San Josersquos
Berryessa neighborhood During a recent board meeting officials said it could begin service as
soon as November but now both agencies say it will open by the end of the year
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
Meanwhile BART is waiting for VTA to finish testing the system and turn over the keys so that
BART can begin its own tests That has to happen by June for the stations to open on time
Holmes said
Commuters are getting restless
ldquoThe day before yesterday I was in downtown San Jose and my next meeting was in Oaklandrdquo
said Adina Levin a Menlo Park resident who heads the advocacy group Friends of Caltrain
Levin spent an hour and a half taking a bus from the South Bay to Warm Springs BART then
riding the train to Oakland mdash the speed and seamlessness of a single train would have been
helpful she said
The marriage between the two agencies sometimes looks like a collaboration and at other
times resembles a battle of egos Itrsquos a territorial expansion for BART and a point of pride for
VTA as reflected in the architecture Stained glass glimmers from Milpitas Station designed in a
curved pattern to resemble the Diablo foothills Berryessa Station includes a ldquocontemplativerdquo
garden
Because Santa Clara County decided not to join the BART district when it formed in 1965 the
county was left on its own to build the new track and stations and then pay BART to operate
them Officials would rely on a combination of fares and an eighth-of-a-cent sales tax that the
county began collecting in 2012 Yet the tax expires in 2042 and itrsquos impossible to predict
whether voters will approve a replacement
Bernice Alaniz (right) of the Valley Transportation Authority gives a tour of the new BART
station in Milpitas
| Gabrielle Lurie The Chronicle
The discussions have an eerie precedent that nobody wants to repeat In the late 1990s BART
partnered with the San Mateo County Transit District to build a five-stop line down the
Peninsula to San Francisco International Airport SamTrans agreed to pay for operating costs
predicting the agency would recoup all the money in fares Yet when the airport line opened in
2003 it only drew about half of the 50000 anticipated daily customers leaving a deficit of
$184 million that first year And the costs kept piling up
In 2007 BART and SamTrans parted ways Their divorce settlement gave BART custody of the
line plus $56 million in state infrastructure bond money and 2 of the annual proceeds from
San Mateo Countyrsquos half-cent sales tax which helped pay for the track to Warm Springs in the
East Bay
That bad memory hovers over the current negotiations to stretch BART into San Jose said
Santa Clara Councilwoman Teresa OrsquoNeill As chair of the Valley Transportation Authority shersquos
closely monitored the discussions
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
ldquoI heard BART had a divorce with San Mateo County and Irsquom told that may be coloring this a
bitrdquo OrsquoNeill said ldquoAnd we donrsquot want that We want a long happy marriagerdquo
One thing that BART and Santa Clara have going is a better prenuptial agreement Unlike its
South Bay neighbor Santa Clara built the tracks and stations itself It assumed all financial risk
mdash if the extension flops the only harm BART would suffer is to its public image since its logo is
painted on the train cars Another factor that could boost the projectrsquos success is Google which
could add up to 20000 jobs mdash the company encourages workers to use trains and buses rather
than drive Whereas the San Mateo County line vastly underperformed some consultants say
that the Silicon Valley BART line could exceed ridership expectations
A native of Santa Clara OrsquoNeill has waited an entire lifetime for BART to reach the South Bay
reversing the urban planning decisions of the 1960s when San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
opted to build expressways instead of mass transit
ldquoThe decision was made not to join the BART district and then the county built an expressway
systemrdquo she said
The new BART line would accelerate the next transformation which is already under way in
Milpitas Developers will add 7500 housing units around the still-empty station where
mammoth structures of wood and rebar line a once-empty skyline It adjoins the Great Mall mdash
a shopping and transit center on the site of a former Ford assembly plant mdash as well as the VTArsquos
light rail line
With so much of the regionrsquos future hanging in the balance officials are tiptoeing around the
ongoing contract talks Santa Clara transit officials say they are confident that one-eighth cent
sales tax combined with fares from an anticipated 23000 weekday riders will be enough to
cover the cost of operating the extension Yet theyrsquove also offered to supplement that money
with funding the county receives from the state Transportation Development Act which would
otherwise go to road maintenance and regional mass transit in Silicon Valley
Even so uncertainty clouds the negotiations BART hasnrsquot yet worked out a fare structure for
the new line or decided whether to add a surcharge when riders cross the border between
Alameda and Santa Clara counties mdash similar to the fee BART charges to enter San Mateo
County or to travel through the Transbay Tube Eventually both transit boards will have to
approve the operating and maintenance agreement and some directors wonrsquot sign on until
theyrsquove read the document and can stand by every line
ldquoI wouldnrsquot sign an agreement unless I was given ample opportunity to read itrdquo said BART
director Debora Allen who represents central Contra Costa county
During a recent tour of Milpitas Station officials from BART and the VTA bowed their heads
when asked about the operating agreement Some financial issues still have to be resolved said
Valley Transportation Authority spokesman Jim Lawson but Holmes declined to provide
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
specifics Both said the agencies are building consensus around the sales tax funding plan with
Transportation Development Act funds as a backup
Other challenges loom in the second phase of the project expected to break ground next year
Chief among them is the tunnel design beneath downtown San Jose While the first 10-mile
segment is either elevated or at street level the second segement will burrow underground
The two agencies agreed to a single-bore construction method rather than the more invasive
twin bore with tracks running side-by-side
The single bore plan presupposes that trains would run one atop the other mdash similar to a
double-decker freeway mdash but several board directors insist on laying tracks side-by-side
anyway That places a heavy engineering demand on the VTA
Itrsquos ldquoin the early stages of being studied for feasibilityrdquo said project spokeswoman Bernice
Alaniz
OrsquoNeill was optimistic standing on a pedestrian bridge that crosses Capitol Avenue connecting
the empty BART station to the VTA light rail
ldquoWe certainly donrsquot want to tell the public we arenrsquot going to open because we canrsquot agree on
operating things mdashrdquo she started until Lawson cut her off
ldquomdash And thatrsquos not going to happenrdquo he said
BART Extension Itrsquos Complicated (NBC Bay Area ndash repeat of Chronicle story)
(Link to video)
Lets Be Clear (VTA Headways blog)
The article in the April 5th San Francisco Chronicle titled ldquoBART Extension Itrsquos complicatedrdquo
attempts to portray the project as delayed and that BART and VTA are ldquohellipbickering over
financial detailsrdquo
At this point the project is essentially complete and is undergoing system testing The
Operations and Maintenance Agreement is not delaying project progress It is on schedule to
meet its Revenue Service date of late 2019 as the Board heard at its April 4th meeting The
planned meeting between BART and VTA Board members was cancelled to give the respective
staff members the opportunity reach agreement on further details of the complex Operating
and Maintenance Agreement proposed between the organizations
The reporter was informed that the continued VTA financial support beyond 2042 was
conceptually agreed by both parties VTA provided the reporter the following information via
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
VTA has a contractual obligation to continue to fund the operations maintenance and
improvements related to the BART extension into Santa Clara County and VTA would be
funding the operations maintenance and improvements related to the BART extension
primarily with 2008 Measure B tax revenues and the fare revenues on the extension
In addition if needed VTA may elect to supplement 2008 Measure B with grant revenues in
amounts that will support expenditures compliant with the grant purpose VTA would dedicate
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues if 2008 Measure B expires or is exhausted
with no suitable replacement in place
For the Berryessa Extension the fares will be zone based and we donrsquot envision having a
surcharge on Phase 1 Prior to revenue service on Phase 2 ridership revenuesexpenses will be
evaluated and a determination will be made whether there should be a surcharge or not
BART Update KTVU Ch 2 (link to video)
VTA Board allocates Measure B funds to controversial San Jose project (San Jose
Spotlight)
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board on Thursday approved $25 million in
transit Measure B funds for a controversial traffic calming project in San Jose
Critics say the Charcot Avenue Extension project which would cross over highway I-880 from
Paragon Drive to Oakland Road would endanger the safety of children at nearby Orchard
Elementary School The city plans to widen Silkwood Lane the road immediately behind the
school to act as a connector But hundreds of children cross Silkwood everyday to get to and
from school and the plan has created concern among parents
ldquoThe cars are going to go downhill on an overpass into a school crossing where we have 200 to
300 people crossing every dayrdquo said Robin Roemer a parent at Orchard Elementary School
ldquoThen there is truck traffic coming from an industrial zone in North San Jose I donrsquot even want
to think about any accident with a truck like thatrdquo
Roemer has organized a parent-led effort against the project at Orchard Last year he collected
more than 600 signatures in two weeks to halt the project and send it back for redesign
He told San Joseacute Spotlight that in addition to safety concerns parents are also worried about air
pollution noise issues and the city invoking eminent domain to take a portion of the schoolrsquos
playground for the road expansion
On Thursday morning VTA spokesperson Holly Perez said the agency was aware of the
concerns brought forward by Roemer She added that the project had been approved for fund
allocation by voters via the 2016 sales tax ballot Measure B
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings
ldquoIt is being advanced by the city through the delivery process in accordance with the Measure B
program guidelines and is included in all applicable transportation plansrdquo Perez said ldquoVTA staff
has no basis for rejecting or de-prioritizing the projectrdquo
Jessica Zenk deputy director of San Josersquos department of transportation said that the funding
from Measure B will be a key part of the project along with local transportation impact fees
Addressing safety concerns
City transportation officials said the city is trying to be thoughtful with the design when it
comes to safety and the cityrsquos commitment to Vision Zero ndash a global endeavor to reduce traffic
fatalities
ldquoWersquove taken the project and really tried to design it from the pedestrian and bike
perspectiverdquo Zenk said
She added that the project will incorporate physically protected bike and pedestrian lanes
throughout the overpass
ldquoPart of Vision Zero is to make the locations that are high fatal areas (safe)rdquo Division
Manager Zahir Gulzadah said ldquoIf you look at the crash data (the area) is not great for
pedestrians and bikes To have a facility to connect it is key for us as we work toward Vision
Zero goalsrdquo
Gulzadah and Zenk said that the city has worked with the school to address safety concerns and
is considering installing a pedestrian crossing signal Theyrsquove also offered to provide funds to
redesign the playground that will be lost to Silkwood Lanersquos widening
However Jaime Fearer deputy director of pedestrian safety advocacy group California Walks
said she doesnrsquot think the pedestrian signal is substantial enough for traffic coming off of the
bridge
ldquoWe can program signals to work differently at different times of the dayrdquo she said ldquoI would
love to see if therersquos a study of a full signal at this intersectionrdquo
California Walks recently conducted a study to help improve pedestrian and bicycle safety in
the Orchard Elementary School area The report found that from 2013 to 2017 there have been
25 pedestrian collisions ndash including three fatalities and three severe injuries Drivers not yielding
to pedestrians was the largest cause of the collision
Next steps
City officials are currently conducting an environmental review of the Charcot Avenue
extension project looking at issues such as air quality noise and land use conflicts with Orchard
Elementary School Zenk and Gulzadah said the report will be released in June followed
by community meetings