ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Thursday, April 20, 2017
12:00 PM
VTA Conference Room B-106 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
CONSENT AGENDA
4. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2017.
5. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $1,200,150 with Biggs Cardosa and Associates, Inc. (BCA) to perform final design and engineering services for the Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing project.
6. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with CDM Smith for an amount not-to-exceed $1,600,000 for a task order contract for the preparation of the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee April 20, 2017 7. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to amend the contract with TransCore in an amount of $1,552,229 for the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 Electronic Toll Systems (ETS) Integrator services and to use the new total contract amount of $7,452,556 to calculate the General Manager’s amendment authority under the Administrative Code Section 9.2(h). This amendment will cover the addition to the original scope of the development and implementation of a Violation Enforcement System (VES) and a fiber optic communications system to the Electronic Toll System for the SR 237 Express Lanes corridor.
8. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute contract amendments with HMH Engineers to perform Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) services in an amount not to exceed a total of $1,825,000 for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project, and further authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute the necessary agreements with State, local and regulatory agencies to complete PA/ED phase tasks.
9. ACTION ITEM -Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager or the Chief Operating Officer or the Director of Planning and Program Development or the General Counsel to file and execute grant applications and agreements with the State of California for California Transit Security Grant Program - California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funds.
10. INFORMATION ITEM -Review the Quarterly Purchasing Report for January 1 through March 31, 2017.
11. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the Monthly Investment Report for February 2017.
12. INFORMATION ITEM -Review the Legislative Update Matrix.
REGULAR AGENDA
13. ACTION ITEM -Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the Final VTA Transit Service Plan.
14. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with BKF in the amount up to $14,100,000 to perform final design services for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project.
15. ACTION ITEM -Authorize the General Manager to execute a master task order contract with TransCore to provide Electronic Toll System Integration services for the Silicon Valley Express Lanes (SVEL) Program on US 101and SR 85 for a five-year term with an option to extend the term to provide SI services throughout the duration of the SVEL Program, in an amount not to exceed $20 million.
16. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive the Report on the Low/No Electric Bus Procurement.
Page 2 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee April 20, 2017 OTHER ITEMS
17. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.
18. Review Committee Work Plan. (Srinath)
19. Committee Staff Report. (Srinath)
20. Chairperson's Report. (Hendricks)
21. Determine Consent Agenda for the May 4, 2017, Board of Directors Meeting.
22. ANNOUNCEMENTS
23. ADJOURN
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or [email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is www.vta.org or visit us on www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.
Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 84308) In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member who has received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than $250 from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision. A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308 and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the law.
All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.
NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.
Page 3 4
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Thursday, March 16, 2017
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Administration and Finance Committee (A&F) was called to order at 12:01 p.m. by Chairperson Hendricks in Conference Room B-106, VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Jeannie Bruins Member Present Larry Carr Vice Chairperson Present John McAlister Alternate Member NA Dev Davis Alternate Member NA Sam Liccardo Member Present Glenn Hendricks Chairperson Present
*Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member.
A quorum was present.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) referenced a letter he sent to the Board of Directors in January 2017 related to San Mateo County wanting to bridge a gap between Bay Meadows and Hillsdale Shopping Center; 2) provided history about the Caltrain project that would link Bay Meadows to Hillsdale Shopping Center; and 3) expressed concern about how Caltrain will get funding for the project.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were no Orders of the Day.
4
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2017
M/S/C (Liccardo/Carr) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2017.
5. FY17-18 Transportation Development Act (TDA)/State Transit Assistance (STA) Claim
M/S/C (Liccardo/Carr) to approve submitting a recommendation to the Board of Directors to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an annual claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for allocation of FY 2017-2018 Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds.
6. Rapid 523 Improvements
M/S/C (Liccardo/Carr) to approve submitting a recommendation to the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Sposeto Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $1,730,247 for the construction of the Rapid 523 Bus Stop Improvements.
7. Legislative Update Matrix
M/S/C (Liccardo/Carr) to approve submitting a recommendation to the Board of Directors to review the Legislative Update Matrix
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Sam Liccardo, Member SECONDER: Larry Carr, Member AYES: Bruins, Carr, Hendricks, Liccardo NOES: None ABSENT: None
Member Liccardo left his seat at 12:06 p.m.
NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Administration and Finance Committee Page 2 of 6 March 16, 2017
4
REGULAR AGENDA
8. Selection of a Developer for Tamien Joint Development Negotiations
Ron Golem, Deputy Director of Real Estate, provided an overview of the staff report and provided a presentation entitled “Tamien Developer Selection,” highlighting: 1) Tamien Project; 2) Tamien Site Plan; 3) Joint Development Policy Goals; 4) Tamien Developer Request for Proposals; 5) Tamien Request for Proposal (RFP) Goals; 6) Submittals; 7) Republic Tamien LLC Proposal; 8) Republic Tamien; 9) Republic Tamien Site Plan; 10) Republic Tamien Replacement Parking; 11) ROEM Development Corp. Proposal; 12) ROEM Development; 13) ROEM Development Site Plan; 14) ROEM Replacement Parking; 15) Considerations for Evaluation Process; 16) Evaluation Panel Process; 17) Evaluation Panel Findings; and 18) Potential VTA Objectives for Negotiations.
Mr. Golem informed the Committee that a letter received from ROEM and VTA’s response was placed at their table.
Public Comment
Mr. Lebrun made the following comments: 1) expressed support for staff’s recommendation; 2) noted San Jose’s contribution of funds was incorrect; and 3) provided suggestions on how to decrease parking congestion at the Tamien Station.
Chris Neale, Republic Tamien LLC, expressed gratitude to VTA for the opportunity to partner and create something great for the community. Mr. Neale noted that the company has been serving the community for 20 years and looks forward to helping create more affordable housing in the area. He further noted that the company is aware of the importance of providing child care which is why they chose to partner with Bright Horizons and keep the child care center at Tamien.
Tony Mirenda, Blach Construction Company, reported his team will be assisting with the project. The Blach Construction Company helps provide programs for the Community Work Force Group, to provide work opportunities for veterans and youth.
Brett Bymaster, River Church San Jose, expressed support for the project, noting the need for more affordable housing. He urged the Board to push for a higher area median income (AMI) goal than what was presented in the proposal.
Josue Garcia, Building & Construction Trades Council, expressed support for staff’s recommendation to move forward with Republic LLC.
Members of the Committee made the following comments: 1) requested that there be a minimum standard for the interior space, noting affordable housing should not have lower quality interior space; 2) noted the importance of having a child care center in a transit oriented development area; 3) expressed support for the staff’s recommendation; 4) noted the importance to work harder for more affordable housing units; 5) suggested looking at ways to shorten the construction timeline in order to reduce any community impact; 6) referenced the transportation demand management concept in the proposal and requested staff to consider the proposed solution to address first and last mile; 7) commended staff for their thorough RFP process; 8) inquired about the opportunity to use the recently passed
Administration and Finance Committee Page 3 of 6 March 16, 2017
4
Measure as a funding source to increase affordable housing; 9) inquired about the parking garage and the use of the garage for other purposes; 10) commented about the importance of reaching benchmark goals; and 11) discussed the primary goals of the project.
Jessie Thielen, Senior Real Estate Agent, reviewed Attachment 9.b. Republic Tamien Proposal Summary of the staff report with the Committee.
Mr. Golem made the following comments; 1) commented that staff is looking at multiple funding sources; 2) provided detail on how a parking garage could be utilized for something else in the future if the structure was built correctly; and 3) reported that staff will continue to find opportunities to increase the affordable housing goal.
M/S/C (Bruins/Carr) on a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal to approve submitting a recommendation to the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with Republic Tamien LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban Properties and The Core Companies) for negotiation of the proposed terms and conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at the Tamien Station. If agreement cannot be reached with Republic Tamien LLC during the ENA term, authorize the General Manager to enter into an ENA with ROEM Development Corporation. Vice Chairperson Liccardo recused.
RESULT: APPROVED MOVER: Jeannie Bruins, Member SECONDER: Larry Carr, Member AYES: Bruins, Carr, Hendricks NOES: None RECUSAL: Liccardo ABSENT: None Member Liccardo returned to his seat at 12:57 p.m.
9. Appoint Sales Tax Audit Consultant
Michael Smith, Fiscal Resources Manager, provided an overview of the staff report. M/S/C (Liccardo/Bruins) to approve submitting a recommendation to the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with MuniServices, LLC, for a five-year term, plus two optional one year extensions to provide sales tax reporting, forecasting and audit/recovery services. Fees for sales tax reporting and forecasting services shall not exceed $250,000 in total over the seven year life of the contract. Separate from the limit on reporting and forecasting fees, the audit/recovery fees will be paid additionally on a contingent basis at a rate of 20% of the sales tax revenues recovered by MuniServices.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Sam Liccardo, Member SECONDER: Jeannie Bruins, Member AYES: Bruins, Carr, Hendricks, Liccardo NOES: None ABSENT: None
Administration and Finance Committee Page 4 of 6 March 16, 2017
4
10. Monthly Investment Report - January 2017
Sean Bill, Investment Program Manager, provided an overview of the staff report. Upon inquiry of Members of the Committee, Mr. Bill reported that staff is working on reducing the equity exposure in the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) portfolio to mitigate downside impact during a market correction. He further reported that for the past few years the goal has been to further diversify the portfolio through the use of multiple return drivers. Specifically, the private real estate and absolute return asset classes were added to the portfolio in 2016 and real assets are scheduled to be added in 2017.
On order of Chairperson and there being no objection, the Committee received the Monthly Investment Report for January 2017.
OTHER ITEMS
11. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration
There were no items of Concern and Referral to Administration.
12. Committee Work Plan
On order of Chairperson and there being no objection, the Committee reviewed the Committee Work Plan.
13. Committee Staff Report
Jim Lawson, Director of Public Affairs and Executive Policy Advisor, made the following comments: 1) announced the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Warm Springs Extension will be open on March 25, 2017 and the opening day celebration will be held on March 24, 2017; and 2) VTA’s Board Workshop is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on April 21, 2017, at the County building.
14. Chairperson's Report
There was no Chairperson’s Report.
15. Determine Consent Agenda for the April 6, 2017, Board of Directors Meeting
CONSENT:
Agenda Item #5. A resolution authorizing the filing of an annual claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for allocation of FY 2017-2018 Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds.
Agenda Item #6. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Sposeto Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $1,730,247 for the construction of the Rapid 523 Bus Stop Improvements.
Agenda Item #7. Review the Legislative Update Matrix.
Administration and Finance Committee Page 5 of 6 March 16, 2017
4
Agenda Item #8.- Authorize the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with Republic Tamien LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban Properties and The Core Companies) for negotiation of the proposed terms and conditions of a Joint Development Agreement for a Joint Development project at the Tamien Station. If agreement cannot be reached with Republic Tamien LLC during the ENA term, authorize the General Manager to enter into an ENA with ROEM Development Corporation.
REGULAR:
Agenda Item #9. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with MuniServices, LLC, for a five-year term, plus two optional one year extensions to provide sales tax reporting, forecasting and audit/recovery services. Fees for sales tax reporting and forecasting services shall not exceed $250,000 in total over the seven year life of the contract. Separate from the limit on reporting and forecasting fees, the audit/recovery fees will be paid additionally on a contingent basis at a rate of 20% of the sales tax revenues recovered by MuniServices.
16. Announcements
There were no Announcements.
17. Adjournment
On order of Chairperson Hendricks and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 1:06 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Theadora Abraham, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Administration and Finance Committee Page 6 of 6 March 16, 2017
5
Date: April 11, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Engr & Transp Infra Dev, Dennis Ratcliffe
SUBJECT: Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing Contract for Final Design and Engineering Services
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $1,200,150 with Biggs Cardosa and Associates, Inc. (BCA) to perform final design and engineering services for the Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing project.
BACKGROUND: The extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) services into Santa Clara County, known as VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Program, is being implemented under a comprehensive agreement between BART and VTA. VTA is implementing the extension in phases. The first phase is a two- station extension of approximately ten miles, extending from BART’s Warm Springs station in Alameda County to VTA’s Berryessa Station in the City of San Jose. This phase, currently under construction, is known as VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX) Project and includes the Milpitas Station in the City of Milpitas.
The City of Milpitas (City) identified a pedestrian overcrossing across Montague Expressway in the vicinity of the SVBX Milpitas Station in its Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP), which calls for the redevelopment of approximately 437 acres around the SVBX Milpitas Station. The Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) will span approximately 250 feet over Montague Expressway connecting the second level of the Parking Garage at the SVBX Milpitas Station campus on the south side to a pedestrian access landing on the north side. The POC will provide safe pedestrian passage across Montague Expressway to the Milpitas BART Station from residential development and the Great Mall on the north side of Montague Expressway. The City has secured the right-of-way required for the POC on the north side as part of its Conditions of
5
Approval related to the First American Title/Citation II development.
VTA has been working cooperatively with the City to deliver the Montague POC project. VTA performed preliminary engineering services for this POC as a mitigation for SVBX Project’s impacts to the City's Curtis Park. Preliminary engineering was completed in 2015 and approved by VTA, the City, and the County of Santa Clara. VTA and the City jointly applied for a One Bay Area Government (OBAG) grant that was secured in September 2015 for the Final Design and Environmental Clearance (FD/EC) Phase of the Montague POC. The OBAG grant provides partial funding for the FD/EC Phase, and City is providing the remaining funds. On March 7, 2017, the Tenth Amendment to the Master Agreement between VTA and the City was approved by Milpitas City Council and further detailed the obligations of each party related to the Montague POC for the FD/EC and construction phases. This Amendment provides that VTA will administer both the final design and construction phases of the project while the City will provide the unfunded balance of the cost to complete the final design phase. VTA will begin design services only after all City funds for the FD/EC phase are received.
VTA and the City are actively working on a construction funding strategy to deliver the POC project. Funding plans for the Montague POC are as follows:
Environmental Clearance/Final Design (Fully Funded) Costs Funding Management and Support Services $ 601,000 Design Services (Biggs Cardosa Associates) $1,200,150 Real Estate Services & Utility Design $ 200,000 Contingency (15%): $ 300,000
OBAG 1 Funds $ 744,000 City OBAG 1 Match Funds $ 100,000 City (Amendment 10) $ 1,457,150 Total Costs and Funding: $ 2,301,150 $ 2,301,150
Construction Phase (Proposed Funding Plan) Costs Funding Engineering, Management, Other Support $ 2,124,000 Property Easements & Utility Relocation $ 900,000 Construction $ 9,247,000 Contingency (10%): $ 217,400
Transit Performance Initiative Grant Funds $ 2,768,555 OBAG 2 Funds $ 7,000,000 City OBAG 2 Matching Funds $ 2,664,000 Additional Local Funds (TBD) $ 55,845 Total Costs and Funding: $ 12,488,400 $12,488,400
Page 2 of 4 5
DISCUSSION: A Request for Proposal (RFP) for final design and engineering services for the Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing was issued in October 2015. The scope of services included project management; geotechnical investigations and foundation engineering; environmental clearance support; complete design plans; technical specifications; construction estimates; bid support; and optional services for construction phase support.
On December 9, 2015, three proposals were received in response to the RFP. The proposals were reviewed by a panel of four VTA staff and one City staff. The proposals were evaluated based on the firms’ proposed staffing and project organization, qualifications, and demonstrated project understanding. All three firms submitting proposals were selected for interviews: - Biggs Cardosa and Associates, Inc. - STV Group, Inc. - Watry Design, Inc
Oral interviews were conducted to evaluate each firm’s experience with structural bridge design for similar structures over highly travelled roadways; understanding of project constraints and potential challenges; familiarity with the project site; and value engineering expertise. Based on the written proposals and interviews, the panel unanimously recommended Biggs Cardosa and Associates, Inc. (BCA) for this work.
The contract with BCA will include an estimated 7,235 hours of design and engineering services.
ALTERNATIVES:
The VTA Board could choose not to authorize this contract and request staff to solicit additional proposals; however, that action would result in time and cost impacts to the project. FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $1,200,150 for design and engineering services for the Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing for the next three years. Appropriation for this expenditure is included in the FY17 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget. This contract will be funded by City of Milpitas, and Federal One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funds.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION: In connection with performance of the contract, a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 6.35% was established based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities. The Contractor has satisfied this requirement by committing to a 8.83% goal.
Prepared by: Evelyn Ho, Sr. Transportation Engineer Memo No. 5588
Page 3 of 4 5
ATTACHMENTS: 5588 POC Consultant List _Attachment A (PDF) 5588 POC Site Map_ Attachment B (PDF)
Page 4 of 4 5.a
Attachment A List of Prime and Sub-consultant Contact Information
Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing Contract for Design and Engineering Services with Biggs Cardosa and Associates, Inc.
Contractor Firm Contractor Role Location DBE Biggs Cardosa Project Management, QA/ QC, 865 The Alameda No Associates, Inc. Structural Engineering, Cost San Jose, CA 95126 (Prime) Estimating, Scheduling, Value Engineering HNTB Architecture, Urban Design, 1735 Technology Drive, Suite 650 No Mechanical, Fire Protection, San Jose, CA 95110 Elevator, Renderings HMH Civil Engineering, Site 1570 Oakland Road No Distance Analysis, Traffic San Jose, CA 95131 (DBE) Handling, Surveying, Site Drainage, Utility Coordination, ROW, SWPPP, Landscape Architecture, Permitting, Construction Staging Assistance Parikh Consultants Geotechnical Engineering 2630 Qume Drive, Suite A Yes San Jose, CA 95131 Alliance Engineering Electrical, Lighting, Public 4701 Patrick Henry Drive, Building 10 Yes Address, Security & Santa Clara, CA 95054 Communications, CCTV, Emergency Phones
Page 1 of 1 5.b
Attachment B
Montague Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Site Location
Page 1 of 1 6
Date: April 11, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: Authorize General Manager to Execute Contract for SR 85 Transit Guideway Study
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with CDM Smith for an amount not-to- exceed $1,600,000 for a task order contract for the preparation of the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study.
BACKGROUND:
The 2016 Measure B countywide sales tax provides funding for a study of transportation alternatives that include but are not limited to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the SR 85 Corridor. VTA has advanced 2000 Measure A funds to begin this study in preparation for implementation of the 2016 Measure B Program. The initial study tasks, funded by Measure A, include gathering data and defining the transit travel market which could be served by a transit guideway on SR 85, evaluation of the right of way limits in the SR 85 Corridor and how a guideway can be accommodated in those limits, and public outreach. The 2016 Measure B funds would fund the layout of guideway alternatives on SR 85 including costs and benefits.
DISCUSSION:
The planning and outreach process that led to the program of projects funded by 2016 Measure B sales tax included discussions with West Valley and North County cities on ways to reduce congestion on SR 85 and the development of a robust transit alternative as part of the solution. A
6
Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was formed by the VTA Board of Directors to work with staff and provide advice to the VTA Board of Directors on projects that would relieve congestion and provide noise abatement to nearby residences. The Transit Guideway Study will define a set of improvements that will improve the ability of transit to provide an attractive travel alternative in the Corridor.
The initial part of the study, Task 1, which is currently funded by Measure A funds will define the transit market and begin to define the challenges of the Corridor limits and include public outreach. The scope of Task 1 has been shared with the PAB. The remainder of the study, Task 2, will define a set of capital improvements and an operating plan for an SR 85 transit guideway. The funding for Task 2 is part of the budget request for 2016 Measure B funds that will be considered by the Board of Directors as part of the FY 2018 Proposed Capital Budget.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on December 7, 2016. The RFP was advertised in the San Jose Post Record and posted on the VTA Procurement website. In addition, notices were sent to prospective proposers.
A Pre-Proposal Conference was held at the VTA River Oaks campus on December 20, 2016. VTA received four proposals on January 12, 2017. An evaluation committee comprised of VTA staff reviewed the proposals.
The selection criteria included qualification of the firm, staffing and project organization, and work plan/project understanding as evidenced in the proposals work plans, local firm preference and cost. Proposals were received from the following firms:
AECOM CDM Smith HDR WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff All four firms qualified for and were interviewed on January 25, 2017 at VTA’s River Oaks campus. The firms were measured against the selected criteria pursuant to the proposal and interviews.
CDM Smith was selected to be awarded the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study contract. The evaluation committee determined that CDM Smith provided the best team and vision for the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study. CDM Smith has done similar work on other studies of this type in the Bay Area and California. Members of the CDM Smith team have written papers on bus on freeway treatments for the Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Because VTA advanced 2000 Measure A funds from the current Fiscal Year 2017 budget to kick start the Study in anticipation of additional funds becoming available from 2016 Measure B in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, a task order approach is necessary. The initial tasks will be to analyze the travel market using big data and other tools to develop the best approaches to transit
Page 2 of 3 6
in the Corridor, and to research and understand the constraints in the Corridor that will impact a transit guideway. Public outreach will also be part of the initial tasks. These tasks are budgeted for $400,000 with sufficient funds available in the current 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund capital budget. Funds for the remaining tasks including the ultimate goal of developing a conceptual plan for a SR 85 transit guideway are budgeted for $1,200,000 with the work to complete those tasks only authorized if approved for 2016 Measure B funding in the FY 2018 Proposed Capital Budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board of Directors can choose to reject the recommended action and have staff negotiate with one of the other firms or repeat the RFP process. However, negotiations with a new firm and repeating the RFP process will impact the timing of information needed to inform the ongoing processes that will affect the State Route 85 Transit Guideway Study.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $1,600,000 of planning services for the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study effort. Appropriation for $400,000 of these expenditures is included in the FY17 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget and funded by 2000 Measure A. The remaining $1,200,000 will only be authorized for expenditure if approved for 2016 Measure B funding in the FY 2018 Proposed Capital Budget.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
Based on the identifiable subcontracting opportunities, no specific SBE goal has been established by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses for this contract. However, there is one qualified SBE subcontractor on the consultant team responsible for 8.7% of the budget.
Prepared by: Steven Fisher Memo No. 6039
ATTACHMENTS: SR 85 Subconsultants List (DOCX)
Page 3 of 3 6.a ATTACHMENT A – LIST OF PRIME AND SUBCONTRACTORS
Firm Name Role Location DBE CDM Smith (Prime) Planning and Design 220 Montgomery Street, No Suite 1418, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Apex Strategies Public Meeting Facilitation 111 Nanna Court No Santa Cruz, CA 95060 CHS Consulting Group Transit Planning and 220 Montgomery Street, Yes Freeway Operations Suite 346, San Francisco, CA 94104 Circlepoint Public and Stakeholder 46 S First Street, San Jose, No Outreach CA 95113 Jarrett Walker + Associates Transit Network Planning 1327 SE Tacoma Street, No and Analysis Suite 166, Portland, OR 97202 Parsons Transportation LRT Design, Engineering 100 West San Fernando No Group Support, and Cost Street, Suite 375, San Jose, Estimation CA 95113
7
Date: April 13, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: SR 237 Phase 2 Express Lanes Electronic Toll Systems Integrator - Contract Amendment #1
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to amend the contract with TransCore in an amount of $1,552,229 for the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 Electronic Toll Systems (ETS) Integrator services and to use the new total contract amount of $7,452,556 to calculate the General Manager’s amendment authority under the Administrative Code Section 9.2(h). This amendment will cover the addition to the original scope of the development and implementation of a Violation Enforcement System (VES) and a fiber optic communications system to the Electronic Toll System for the SR 237 Express Lanes corridor.
BACKGROUND:
The VTA Board of Directors (Board) approved the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program (Program) at the December 11, 2008 Board meeting. The Program, which includes the SR 237 Express Lanes project, is to implement a roadway pricing system to allow the use of unused capacity in carpool lanes to solo driver for a fee.
The Program has been undertaken to provide long-term mobility benefits to corridor travelers and to provide a funding stream for transportation improvements within the corridor. The primary objectives of the Program are:
1. Provide congestion relief through more effective use of existing roadways; 2. Provide commuters with a new mobility option; and 3. Provide a new funding source for transportation improvements including public transit.
7
The SR 237/I-880 Phase 1 Express Connectors project, which converted the carpool lane connector ramps at the SR 237/I-880 interchange to Express Lanes operations, was the first phase of the SR 237 Express Lanes project and the first major milestone in delivering VTA’s Express Lanes Program. The second phase of the SR 237 Express Lanes involves extending Express Lanes between First Street and Mathilda Avenue (Attachment A). Work on Phase 2 is progressing and expected to complete in mid-2019. The final phase beyond the ongoing Phase 2 work would extend the express lanes on SR 237 from the Phase 2 project limits in Sunnyvale to SR 85 in the City of Mountain View. This last segment requires the addition of a third lane in each direction as the HOV/Express Lane. There is no current plan and/or funding identified for this last segment of Express Lanes on SR 237 yet.
On June 4, 2015, the VTA Board of Directors granted authority to the General Manager to execute a contract with TransCore in the amount of $7,352,482 for the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 project. This amount includes $5,900,327 for the development and implementation of the Electronic Toll System (ETS) and $1,452,155 for five years of optional maintenance services for the entirety of SR 237 Express Lanes. It was also noted at this meeting that when additional funding is available, staff would return to the Board for an amendment to the contract for TransCore to develop, implement and maintain a Violation Enforcement System (VES) to automate the enforcement of express lanes violations with the use of video technology.
On August 6, 2015, VTA issued a fixed price contract of $5,900,327, Contract S15135, to TransCore for the development and implementation of the ETS for the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 project with an initial contract term of three (3) years, expiring August 30, 2018.
The proposed action will also clarify that the General Manager’s amendment authority under VTA Administrative Code Section 9.2 (h) will include the ability to amend the contract up to fifteen percent based on the value of the entire contract, rather than just the amount of this amendment.
DISCUSSION:
The development of SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2, including civil design and ETS is progressing into the construction phase with advertisement of a roadway construction contract later in 2017.
Implementation of the VES for SR 237 Express Lanes provides a way to minimize revenue leakage from the system while maintaining consistency with the future planned operations with a VES of the adjacent express lanes system on I-880 being developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The scope of work for this contract amendment includes the following major tasks:
Develop, implement, and maintain a VES including software, hardware equipment, manual image review set up and Disaster Recovery Site for the VTA Express Lanes Operations Center.
Develop and install a fiber optics communications system, including the necessary software and hardware to support a VES.
Page 2 of 4 7
Change in hours of tolling operation from the existing HOV hours of 5am to 9am and 3pm to 7pm to the proposed (and VTA Board adopted) express lanes hours of 5am to 8pm, Monday through Friday.
The time to complete the work scope under this contract amendment would take place concurrently with the existing ETS work already underway to meet the planned opening date of the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 extension in mid-2019.
CONTRACT SUMMARY:
Vendor Name: TransCore Original Contract Amount: $5,900,327 Contract Number: S15135 Prior Modifications: $0 Original Contract Term: 8/6/15 - Amount Requested: $1,552,229 8/30/18 Extended Contract Term: 8/6/15 - Total Amount Incl. Request: $7,452,556 6/30/20 Procurement Type: Firm Fixed Fee % of Request to Current 26.3% Amt: SBE Goal: 5.8% % Mod. to Original 26.3% Contract: UDBE Goal: N/A Funding Sources: San Jose and Local Funds
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may elect to reject staff recommendation to award this contract amendment to TransCore. However, doing this would result in a delay to the delivery of this project, delivery of a project without a VES, and likely higher revenue leakage.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action authorizes a contract amendment of $1,552,229 for the development and implementation of a VES and a fiber optics communications system to the Electronic Toll System for the SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 2 project. Appropriation for these expenditures is available in the FY17 Adopted VTP Highway Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget. This contract amendment is funded by City of San Jose and local funds. SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
Based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities, there was no assigned SBE goal for the contract. However, TransCore had committed to 7.8% SBE participation in the original contract. With the additions of this contract amendment, a revised new SBE goal of 5.8% has been established for the contract.
Prepared by: Lam Trinh Memo No. 6055
Page 3 of 4 7
ATTACHMENTS: 6055_Attachment A_Phase 1 & 2 Map (PDF) 6055_Attachment B_Consultant List (PDF)
Page 4 of 4 7.a Attachment A - SR 237 Express Lanes Phase 1 & Phase 2 Map
7.b
Attachment B
SR 237 PHASE 2 EXPRESS LANES - ELECTRONIC TOLL SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR
List of Consultants
Firm Name Name Role Location TransCore Chris Hall Prime San Diego, CA Calcom, Inc. Cesar Artiga Sub-Consultant Gilroy, CA TJKM Transportation Atul Patel Sub-Consultant Pleasanton, CA Consultants NorCal General Kenny Phan Sub-Consultant San Jose, CA Construction Corporation
8
Date: April 13, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange - Execute PA/ED Services Contract with HMH Engineers
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute contract amendments with HMH Engineers to perform Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) services in an amount not to exceed a total of $1,825,000 for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project, and further authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute the necessary agreements with State, local and regulatory agencies to complete PA/ED phase tasks.
BACKGROUND:
At its December 10, 2015 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to negotiate and execute agreements with the City of Cupertino (City) to receive voluntary contributions to conduct project planning, environmental, design, right of way, and construction activities for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project (Project) and to enter into agreements with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) covering planning, preliminary engineering/environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases for the Project.
On June 10, 2016, VTA entered into a funding cooperative agreement with the City to receive $1,200,000 for the completion of the project initiation document (PID) phase as required by Caltrans. In the PID phase, Caltrans is able to allocate staff resources to assist with the project through a reimbursement program. This Caltrans reimbursement is funded through the contributions from the City.
On January 21, 2016, VTA issued a Request for Proposals seeking qualified firms to provide professional services to develop the PID for the Project with an option that the selected firm
8
could also conduct the subsequent tasks associated with the PA/ED, final design services - Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), right-of-way (ROW), and design support during construction (DSDC) phases.
After a thorough review of the submitted proposals, the review panel determined that HMH Engineers team had submitted the best overall proposal, and was selected for the Project.
On June 6, 2016, VTA issued a cost plus fixed fee contract in the amount of $469,599 with an initial term of one year to HMH Engineers to complete the PID under the authority of the VTA Administrative Code that is given to the General Manager. This initial contract provides the ability for contract amendments to HMH Engineers' contract for future phases of work: PA/ED, PS&E, ROW, and DSDC support services for the Project.
DISCUSSION:
Work on the PID for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange improvements is progressing and is expected to be completed in May 2017. HMH has performed excellent work in delivering the PID within budget and schedule.
The City is proposing to contribute an additional $500,000 to VTA for the initiation of PA/ED tasks with the anticipation that additional funds would be made available to the Project to complete the PA/ED phase. VTA and City staff are amending the existing funding agreement for VTA to receive the funding identified above. This funding would allow the Project to move into the PA/ED phase. A follow up contract amendment would be executed to cover the balance of the PA/ED phase of work once the funding for this work is secured. This approach allows the project work to continue into the PA/ED phase without waiting for the full balance of PA/ED phase funding secured.
This action by the Board of Directors would grant authority to the General Manager to negotiate and execute the initial contract amendment with HMH Engineers for early PA/ED tasks and future amendments to complete the PA/ED phase without the need to return to the Board. This action would also grant authority to the General Manager to negotiate and execute the necessary agreements with State, local and regulatory agencies to complete the PA/ED tasks.
Staff would return to the Board of Directors for the award of contract amendments for the subsequent ROW, PS&E and DSDC project phases.
VTA staff recommends that the Board of Directors grant authority to the General Manager to issue contract amendments with HMH Engineers for the Project’s PA/ED phase including negotiating and executing the necessary agreements with State, local, and regulatory agencies to complete the PA/ED tasks.
Page 2 of 3 8
CONTRACT SUMMARY:
Vendor Name: HMH Engineers Original Contract Amount: $469,599 Contract Number: S16019 Prior Modifications: $0 Original Contract Term: 6/30/2017 Amount Requested: $1,825,000 Extended Contract Term: 6/30/2019 Total Amount Incl. Request: $2,294,599 Procurement Type: Cost Plus Fixed Fee % of Request to Current Amt: 388% SBE Goal: 71% % Mod. to Original Contract: 388% UDBE Goal: N/A Funding Sources: City & VTA
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board of Directors could elect not to authorize the award of contract amendments; however, these actions would delay the implementation of the I-280/Wolfe Road Improvement Project and potentially result in the loss of the funding contributions from the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $1,825,000 for PA/ED services. Appropriation for initial Task Order expenditures on the contract amendment is included in the FY17 Adopted VTP Highway Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget and will be funded by the City’s additional voluntary contribution fund. Future City's voluntary contributions towards the completion of environmental clearance, final design, and construction phases will be negotiated with the City as additional funds become available. Appropriation for future expenditures will be requested in upcoming budget cycles.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
Based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities to perform PID work, a SBE goal of 6.16% was established for this contract. HMH Engineers is an SBE firm and had committed to 76.5% SBE participation for the PID phase. With the additional scope of work for the PA/ED phase in this contract amendment, a revised committed SBE goal of 71% would be achieved by the Contractor for this contract.
Prepared by: Lam Trinh Memo No. 6068
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Project Location Map (PDF) ATTACHMENT B - Consultant List - Rev 1 (PDF)
Page 3 of 3 8.a Attachment A I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project
I-280/Wolfe Road I/C Project Location Map 8.b
ATTACHMENT B
I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project
Consultant List
FIRM NAME NAME ROLE LOCATION HMH Engineers Bill Wagner Principal San Jose, CA Parikh Consultants Gary Parikh Principal San Jose, CA David J. Powers and Associates John Hesler Vice President San Jose, CA Fehr & Peers Eddie Barrios Principal San Jose, CA Biggs Cardosa and Associates Mahvash Harms Principal San Jose, CA Schaaf & Wheeler Kirk Wheeler Principal San Jose, CA Radman Aerial Surveys Carol Radman Principal Sacramento, CA HT Harvey & Associates Kelly Hardwicke Principal Los Gatos, CA Illingworth & Rodkin Keith Pommerenck Senior Consultant Petaluma, CA Cogstone Kim Scott Principal San Francisco, CA Far Western Anthropological Principal Davis, CA Research Group Adie Whitaker WK & Associates William Kanemoto Principal Oakland, CA Apex Solutions Eileen Goodwin President Santa Cruz, CA Traffic Data Services Bob Van Boening Regional Manager San Jose, CA WSP Raul Laborin Office Manager San Jose, CA
9
Date: April 4, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: FY16-17 California Transit Security Grant Program - California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF)
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No Resolution
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager or the Chief Operating Officer or the Director of Planning and Program Development or the General Counsel to file and execute grant applications and agreements with the State of California for California Transit Security Grant Program - California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funds.
BACKGROUND:
The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, enacted by California's voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorizes the issuance of nearly $20 billion in general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including grants for transit system safety, security and disaster response projects.
The State of California has appropriated $48 million in Proposition 1B funds to the FY16-17 California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF). These funds are administered by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). Funds are allocated to each eligible transit system based on a formula that considers population and relative fare revenue collections. VTA is eligible to receive $2,675,302 in this cycle.
The FY16-17 CTSGP-CTAF includes a requirement that eligible transit systems applying for
9
funding adopt a Governing Body Resolution authorizing the submittal and execution of grant applications and agreements, certifications, assurances, and other documents as necessary to obtain financial assistance provided by Cal OES.
Cal OES has allocated $2,675,302 to VTA to implement eligible transit security or safety projects. Projects eligible for these funds include the following:
(A) Capital projects that provide increased protection against a security or safety threat, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Construction or renovation projects that are designed to enhance the security of public transit stations, tunnels, guideways, elevated structures or other transit facilities and equipment. (2) Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment. (3) Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear explosives search, rescue or response equipment. (4) Interoperable communications equipment. (5) Physical security enhancement equipment. (6) The installation of fencing, barriers, gates or related security enhancements that are designed to improve the physical security of transit stations, tunnels, guideways, elevated structures or other transit facilities and equipment. (7) Other security and safety related projects approved by Cal OES.
(B) Capital projects that increase the capacity of transit operators to prepare for disaster- response transportation systems that can move people, goods, emergency personnel, and equipment in the aftermath of a disaster.
(C) Other allowable costs under California Government Code 16727 (a) include costs directly related to construction or acquisition, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, construction management, architectural, and other design work, environmental impact reports and assessments, required mitigation expenses, appraisals, legal expenses, site acquisitions, and necessary easements.
VTA has used prior year CTSGP-CTAF funds to make critical equipment and infrastructure enhancements such as: Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Camera Systems, radio system installation, emergency security telephones, passenger safety improvements, and high security fencing in a variety of locations. VTA has also hardened the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and Global Positioning System (GPS) Interface Equipment allowing VTA's Operations Control Center (OCC) to better track train movements throughout the system.
DISCUSSION:
In March 2017, VTA submitted grant applications to Cal OES for the following projects: (a)CCTV Surveillance Equipment on Light Rail Vehicles and (b)Interoperable Portable Communications Equipment. The final approval of funding for these projects is pending Cal
Page 2 of 3 9
OES' receipt of a VTA Board-adopted resolution authorizing the General Manager to execute the grant application and agreement, certifications, assurances, and other necessary documents.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board of Directors could choose not to accept the grant or select other qualifying security and safety projects. Cal OES has final approval authority over the projects.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will make $2,675,302 in FY16-17 CTSGP-CTAF funds available to VTA for eligible capital transit security or safety projects. Appropriation for these projects is included in the FY 2017 Adopted VTA Transit Fund Capital Budget.
Prepared by: Mike Tasosa Memo No. 6062
Page 3 of 3 9.a
Resolution No. ______
FY16-17 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND (CTSGP-CTAF)
FY 2016-17 Proposition 1B Grant #6961-0002
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL AND EXECUTION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS AND AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including, but not limited to, funding made available for capital projects that provide increased protection against security and safety threats, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems; and
WHEREAS, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administers such funds deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response Account under the California Transit Security Grant Program – California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF); and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is eligible to receive CTSGP-CTAF funds; and
WHEREAS, VTA will apply for FY16-17 CTSGP-CTAF funds in the amount of $2,675,302 to install new CCTV Surveillance Equipment on Light Rail Vehicles and procure new Interoperable Portable Communications Equipment in order to provide increased protection against a security or safety threat; and
WHEREAS, VTA recognizes that it is responsible for compliance with all Cal OES CTSGP-CTAF grant assurances, and state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, laws governing the use of bond funds; and
WHEREAS, Cal OES requires VTA to complete and submit a Governing Body Resolution for the purposes of identifying agent(s) authorized to act on behalf of VTA to execute actions necessary to obtain CTSGP-CTAF funds from Cal OES and ensure continued compliance with Cal OES CTSGP-CTAF assurances, and state and federal laws.
9.a
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that the General Manager or the Chief Operating Officer or the Director of Planning and Program Development or the General Counsel, are hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of VTA a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services under the CTSGP-CTAF.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors on May 4, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______Jeannie Bruins, Chairperson Board of Directors
I HEREBY CERTIFY AND ATTEST that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted by the vote of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California, at a meeting of said Board of Directors on the date indicated, as set forth above.
Date: ______
______Elaine Baltao, Board Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Robert Fabela, General Counsel 10
Date: April 4, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Business Services, Alberto Lara
SUBJECT: Quarterly Purchasing Report January 1 through March 31, 2017
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
The Administrative Code delegates limited contracting authority to the General Manager. This report summarizes the procurements completed, excluding purchases made under $25,000 and those previously approved by the Board of Directors.
Prepared By: Tina Yoke, Procurement, Contracts & Materials Manager Memo No. 5941
10.a
QUARTERLY PURCHASING REPORT January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017 PURCHASES GREATER THAN $25,000 Not previously approved by the VTA Board of Directors
CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS: These contracts were awarded using a formal Procurement process, and the awards were made to the lowest responsive, responsible contractor.
PROCUREMENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACT AMOUNT Bus Steering Parts Gillig LLC $80,002.19 5 Years Fasteners, Electrical Terminals & Misc Items Class C Solutions $903,788.44 5 Years WS-C3850-48P-S Cisco Catalyst 3850 48 Po PCMG Inc. $110,362.90 1 Time Buy Handset, AVL Mobile Equipment/Notrotable Xerox Transport Solution $26,221.20 1 Time Buy Li-Ion Replacement Battery Pack EnerDel Inc. $96,880.00 1 Time Buy Bellow ASM Folding NF23 New Flyer Parts-Aftermarket $28,858.20 1 Time Buy Drive Unit Allison Hybrid EV-40 GH10 Cummins Pacific LLC $152,000.00 1 Time Buy Drive Unit Allison Hybrid EV-40 GH10 Cummins Pacific LLC $152,000.00 1 Time Buy Miscellaneous Engine Parts Prevost Car (US) Inc. $267,177.00 5 Years Miscellaneous Engine Parts Gillig LLC $224,066.43 5 Years Miscellaneous Engine Parts Mohawk MFG & Supply $96,845.25 5 Years Miscellaneous Engine Parts New Flyer Parts-Aftermarket $11,134.91 5 Years ESRI-ArcGIS Advanced Server Software Environmental Systems $40,000.00 1 Time Buy SF – Succession & Career DevPro 2000 use SAP Public Services Inc. $73,790.66 1 Time Buy VTA Vest Arc-Rated ANSI Class 3 LI/OR R & R Industries Inc. $43,274.00 1 Time Buy Tubular Filter to EHU Supply Unit Knorr Brake Corporation $46,080.00 1 Time Buy SCADA Service Renewal Turn 2 Solutions $67,488.96 1 Time Buy SCADA Replacement Parts Turn 2 Solutions $40,353.45 1 Time Buy Install and Program WBIC ET Water Systems Inc. $61,050.00 1 Time Buy SCADA Signaling Parts Alstom Signaling Inc. $41,450.00 1 Time Buy Quantum Maintenance Service Renewal Quantum Corporation $109,712.00 1 Time Buy 9900717 AccessData Remote Implementation AccessData Group Inc. $129,107.00 1 Time Buy Girder Rail Parts Atlantic Track & Turnout $102,574.10 1 Time Buy Cogifer_Right Hand Straight Switch Point Cleveland Track Material $88,400.00 1 Time Buy IC for Front/Rear Signs (set of 2) Clever Devices Ltd $368,400.05 1 Time Buy C1-C6816-X-LE Cisco ONE Catalyst 6816-X- CompuCom Systems Inc. $48,221.42 1 Time Buy L1W21AV_MB HP EliteDesk800 G2 CompuCom Systems Inc. $31,850.00 1 Time Buy Desktop Mi Vinyl Wave Freestyle Blue Morbern GG-GH Gillig LLC $40,100.00 1 Time Buy Iteris detection cameras CAM-RZ4A P0475 Iteris Inc. $41,175.00 1 Time Buy P/N W5X91UT #ABAHP Elite Desk800 G2 CDW Government LLC $36,886.00 1 Time Buy K3 Kiosk BikeLink Group Parking Facility eLock Technologies $75,307.00 1 Time Buy OceCW500 Lease Canon Financial Services $29,005.00 1 Time Buy PO TOTAL: $3,663,561.16
1 10.a
SERVICES PURCHASED: The following are Service Procurements That Were Processed During the Quarter:
SERVICES PURCHASED SERVICES PROVIDED VALUE GE Transportation Systems Global SCADA enhancements $ 230,058 PM Web, Inc. Project Management Web modules $ 318,250 Instant Urgent Care Drug & Alcohol Testing Services $ 168,000 CADC Services Substance Abuse Services $ 84,400 Deenscorp, Inc. De Anza Bus Stop Design Services $ 35,931 MIG Strategic Plan Design $ 49,860 Caribou Public Relations, Inc. Next Network Ambassador $ 26,775 Friendly Filmworks Video Services $ 35,000 AppleOne Employment Services Temporary Accountant I $ 32,320 CPOC Capital Project Oversight CH2M Hill, Inc. $ 77,000 Committee Support LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental Services $ 27,000 Media3Sixty Promotions and Advertisements $ 25,000 SERVICES PURCHASED TOTAL: $ 1,109,594
2 10.a
CONSTRUCTION: There are no procurements to report as all contracts in the Quarter were above $500,000 and were presented to the Board for approval.
3 11
Date: April 11, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Chief Financial Officer, Raj Srinath
SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Report - February 2017
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
The investment activities of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority are in compliance with the Investment of Non-Trust Held Funds Investment Policy, the VTA Retirees’ Other Post- Employment Benefits Trust Investment Policy and the ATU, Local 265 Pension Plan’s Investment Policy.
DISCUSSION:
Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annualized rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016, according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The expansion was the result of positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures, residential investment, and private inventory investment. Offsetting these contributions to growth was a decline in exports.
Headline consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), rose 2.7% year over year as of February 2017. Core CPI, which excludes volatile food and energy prices increased at a rate of 2.2% year over year as of February 2017. Energy prices are moving higher year over year and are lifting the overall rate of consumer inflation, which now exceeds the Federal Reserve target inflation rate of 2.00%.
The unemployment rate in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA was 3.6% in February 2017, down from a revised 3.7% in January 2017, and below the year-ago estimate of 4.0%. This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of 5.2% for California and 4.9% for the nation during the same period.
11
Market Watch
The S&P 500 Index returned 3.97% in February 2017. Large cap stocks returned 3.87% and small cap stocks returned 1.93%. Within the large cap space, growth stocks outperformed value stocks, returning 4.15% and 3.59%, respectively. The top-performing sectors were health care, technology, and financial services. The worst-performing sectors were consumer discretionary, materials & processing, and energy.
The Barclays Aggregate index returned 0.67% in February 2017. For the month of February treasuries returned 0.49% and government related securities returned 0.76%, investment grade corporate debt returned 1.15%.
In global markets, the United States 10 year government bond yield ended the month at 2.39%, down from 2.47% at the end of January. The European 10 year government bond yield ended the month at 0.21% and the Japanese 10 year government bond yield finished February at 0.21%.
VTA Enterprise Funds
VTA Enterprise Funds are invested in portfolios managed by Payden & Rygel, the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and an interest bearing checking account. Investment performance for the Payden & Rygel managed accounts are included in the table below.
The Payden & Rygel weighted average composite portfolio outperformed its policy benchmark in February by 0.06%. The current yield for the Payden long-term portfolio is 1.74%, the mid- term portfolio is 1.33%, and the short-term portfolio is 1.10%.
At month-end the current yield for funds invested in LAIF was 0.78% and the VTA’s checking accounts was 0.50%.
Market performance for each Payden & Rygel account is summarized in the following table:
Investment Performance as of February 2017 Asset Class Fund Manager Feb 3 Mo Y-T-D 1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr I-T-D Long-Term Payden & Rygel 0.34% 0.59% 0.60% 0.42% 1.63% 1.44% 3.43% 4.07% Fixed Income Barclays US Govt. Intermediate Index 0.29% 0.46% 0.49% -0.53% 1.40% 1.12% 3.33% 4.00%
Mid-Term Payden & Rygel 0.15% 0.38% 0.32% 0.99% 0.90% 0.86% - 1.38% Fixed Income 1 Merrill Lynch 1- 3 Year Treasury Index 0.10% 0.26% 0.23% 0.38% 0.67% 0.61% - 1.00%
Short-Term Payden & Rygel 0.13% 0.33% 0.25% 1.12% 0.62% 0.56% 1.28% 1.70% Fixed Income 2 iMoneynet Money Market Index 0.05% 0.12% 0.09% 0.32% 0.13% 0.10% 0.77% 1.21%
Composite Portfolio Returns 0.19% 0.41% 0.36% 0.94% 1.05% 0.99% 2.33% 3.44% Policy Benchmark Returns 0.13% 0.27% 0.25% 0.22% 0.77% 0.68% 2.06% 3.26% 1 Implemented February 11, 2009 2 Implemented February 14, 2003
Page 2 of 7 11
VTA Retirees’ Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust
The VTA Retirees’ OPEB Trust Investment Policy requires the following asset allocation:
Asset Allocation Range Target Actual Domestic Fixed Income 15-30% 23% 21% Domestic Large Cap Index 28-68% 51% 54% Int’l Equity Emerging Market 0-10% 6% 6% Private Real Estate 6-16% 11% 11% Absolute Return 0-15% 8% 8% Cash 0-03% 1% 0%
The Retirees’ OPEB composite portfolio outperformed its policy benchmark by 0.09% in the current month. The current yield for the fixed income portfolio is 4.16%.
Market performance for each money manager is summarized in the following table:
Investment Performance as of February 2017 Asset Class Fund Manager Feb 3 Mo Y-T-D 1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr I-T-D Large Cap Index State Street 3.96% 8.01% 5.92% 24.86% 10.61% 13.96% 7.63% 5.09% S&P 500 Index 3.97% 8.04% 5.95% 24.99% 10.65% 14.02% 7.62% 4.98%
Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 0.86% 2.03% 1.32% 7.73% 3.78% 3.73% 5.36% 5.98% Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index 0.67% 1.01% 0.87% 1.42% 2.65% 2.24% 4.29% 5.21%
Emerging Market State Street EM(2) 2.89% 8.69% 8.69% MCSI World Emerging Market 3.07% 8.95% 8.71%
US Core Real UBS 4 1.46% Estate NCREIF NFI-ODCE 2.11%
Absolute Return Lighthouse 3 0.55% 1.87% 1.31% 4.94% HFRI FoF Index 0.90% 2.64% 1.78% 6.51%
Absolute Return Sky Bridge 3 0.86% 3.35% 2.28% 6.65% HFRI FoF Index 0.90% 2.64% 1.78% 6.51%
Composite Portfolio Returns 2.53% 5.45% 4.09% 16.75% 7.85% 9.91% 7.36% 6.72% Policy Benchmark Returns 2.44% 5.16% 3.90% 15.52% 7.42% 8.55% 6.47% 5.57% 2 Funded June 30, 2016 3 Funded January 28, 2016 4 Funded January 4, 2016
DODGE & COX - The Fixed Income portfolio manager outperformed its benchmark in February 2017 by 0.19%. Contributors to relative outperformance for the month included the portfolios’ overweight to corporate bonds and strong performance from certain commodity related credit holdings.
Page 3 of 7 11
A 7.00% rate of return assumption is used in the annual actuarial analysis for the Retirees’ OPEB. The results of the actuarial analysis determine VTA’s annual contribution rates. Any difference between actual investment returns and the 7.00% assumed annual return is recognized in the same year. The annual returns for the Retirees’ OPEB portfolio have been equivalent to or exceeded the 7.00% assumed rate of return in 9 out of 14 years.
Historic Portfolio Performance for the last fourteen calendar years:
Year Performance Year Performance Year Performance 2003 17.2% 2008 -20.9% 2013 18.9% 2004 7.6% 2009 22.2% 2014 10.8% 2005 3.9% 2010 12.5% 2015 1.1% 2006 11.7% 2011 4.0% 2016 9.3% 2007 6.1% 2012 12.4%
SCVTA-ATU, Local 265 Pension Plan Assets
It is the policy of the SCVTA-ATU Board of Pensions to have a well-managed investment program that provides for the financial needs of the pension plan and allows the investments to be appropriately diversified and prudently invested to protect the safety of the principal while maintaining a reasonable return. Assets are invested within the following investment guidelines:
Asset Allocation Range Target Actual Domestic Fixed Income 15 - 30% 27% 26% Domestic Large-Cap Value 10 - 20% 15% 16% Domestic Large-Cap Index 5 - 15% 10% 10% Domestic Small-Cap Value 5 - 15% 10% 10% Int’l Equity Developed Markets 8 - 18% 13% 13% Int’l Equity Emerging Markets 0-10% 5% 5% US Core Real Estate 5-15% 10% 11% Absolute Return 4-14% 9% 8% Cash 0-05% 1% 1%
The SCVTA-ATU Pension Plan composite portfolio underperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.21%. The current yield of the Dodge & Cox Fixed Income portfolio is 4.01%.
Market performance for each money manager is summarized in the following table:
Page 4 of 7 11
Investment Performance as of February 2017 Asset Class Fund Manager Feb 3 Mo Y-T-D 1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr I-T-D Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 0.76% 1.83% 1.24% 6.98% 3.68% 3.68% 5.36% 6.22% Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index 0.67% 1.01% 0.87% 1.42% 2.65% 2.24% 4.29% 4.83%
Large-Cap Value Boston Partners 4.08% 6.29% 4.71% 28.26% 8.47% 14.01% 8.23% 9.54% Stocks Russell 1000 Value Index 3.59% 6.93% 4.33% 29.09% 9.89% 14.02% 6.20% 7.06%
Large-Cap Index State Street 3.96% 8.01% 5.92% 24.86% 10.61% 13.96% 7.63% 6.79% S&P 500 Index 3.97% 8.04% 5.95% 24.99% 10.65% 14.02% 7.62% 6.70%
Small-Cap Value Wedge 5 0.96% 4.24% 1.27% 34.99% 11.05% 14.82% 7.11% 10.48% Stocks Russell 2000 Value Index 1.45% 4.89% 0.73% 41.30% 8.37% 13.42% 6.31% 9.91%
Int’l Equity Dev. MFS 6 1.30% 6.82% 4.84% 14.41% 1.93% 5.40% - 2.98% Markets Growth MSCI AC World ex-US Growth Index 2.01% 7.67% 6.12% 14.68% 0.63% 4.08% - 0.21%
Emerging Market State Street EM7 2.89% 8.69% 8.69% MCSI World Emerging Market 3.07% 8.95% 8.71%
US Core Real UBS 8 1.46% 7.21% 10.59% 10.47% - 11.52% Estate NCREIF NFI-ODCE 2.11% 8.77% 12.06% 12.21% - 13.56%
Absolute Return Lighthouse 9 0.55% 1.87% 1.31% 4.94% HFRI FoF Index 0.90% 2.64% 1.78% 6.51%
Absolute Return Sky Bridge 9 0.86% 3.35% 2.28% 6.65% HFRI FoF Index 0.90% 2.64% 1.78% 6.51%
Composite Portfolio Returns 10 1.70% 3.74% 2.44% 15.20% 6.07% 8.41% 7.07% 8.13% Policy Benchmark Returns 1.91% 4.21% 2.79% 15.64% 6.01% 7.75% 5.26% 5.99% 5 Funded April 1, 2009. Prior manager was Brandywine with the same benchmark. 6 Funded December 14, 2007. Prior managers were Putnam and Fidelity with MSCI EAFE as their benchmark. 7 Initially funded June 30, 2016 8 Initially funded July 1, 2010. UBS Realty Investors LLC with NCREIF NFI-ODCE as their benchmark. Report 45 days after quarter ended. 9 Funded January 28, 2016 10 Investment performances by prior managers are included in composite returns and historical policy benchmark returns.
DODGE & COX - The Fixed Income portfolio manager outperformed its benchmark in February 2017 by 0.09%. Contributors to relative outperformance for the month included the portfolios’ overweight to corporate bonds and strong performance from certain commodity related credit holdings.
BOSTON PARTNERS - The Domestic Large Cap Value Equity manager outperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.49%. Stock selection and overweight positions in the finance and technology sectors both contributed to the portfolio’s relative outperformance for the month of February.
Page 5 of 7 11
WEDGE - The Domestic Small Cap Value Equity manager underperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.49%. Stock selection in basic materials, retail and technology sectors all contributed to the portfolio’s relative underperformance for the month of February.
MFS - The International Equity manager underperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.71%. Stock selection within the consumer staples and health care sectors both contributed to relative underperformance.
LIGHTHOUSE - The Absolute Return manager underperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.35%. Long /Short equity exposure in the United States and International markets were negative contributors to the portfolio on a relative basis for the month of February. Relative value fixed income and quantitative strategies were positive contributors for the month.
SKYBRIDGE - The Absolute Return manager underperformed its policy benchmark in February 2017 by 0.04%. Mortgage backed securities were a negative contributor for the month of February. Relative value credit and event driven equity strategies were positive contributors for the month.
A 7.00% rate of return assumption is used in the annual actuarial analysis for the ATU Pension Plan. The results of the actuarial analysis determine VTA’s annual contribution rates. The annual returns for the ATU Pension Plan portfolio have been equivalent to or exceeded the 7.00% assumed rate of return 10 out of 14 years.
Historic Portfolio Performance (calendar year) for the last fourteen calendar years:
Year Performance Year Performance Year Performance 2003 21.5% 2008 -19.7% 2013 16.5% 2004 12.2% 2009 25.7% 2014 7.2% 2005 7.2% 2010 14.0% 2015 0.5% 2006 14.5% 2011 1.7% 2016 9.2% 2007 5.8% 2012 14.5%
Page 6 of 7 11
ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund, Dental, and Vision Plan
Asset allocation for the ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund (including funds for dental and vision plans) is provided for in the SCVTA-ATU Pension Plan Investment Policy.
Asset Allocation Range Target Actual Domestic Fixed Income 30 - 50% 38% 34% Domestic Large Cap Index 50 - 70% 60% 63% Cash 0-5% 2% 3%
The ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund composite portfolio outperformed its policy benchmark in the current month by 0.16%. The current yield for the fixed income portfolio is 4.01%
Market performance for each money manager is summarized in the following table:
Investment Performance as of February 2017 Asset Class Fund Manager Feb 3 Mo Y-T-D 1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr I-T-D Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 0.73% 1.68% 1.10% 6.71% 3.05% 3.37% 5.04% 4.85% Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index 0.67% 1.01% 0.87% 1.42% 2.65% 2.24% 4.29% 4.18%
Large-Cap State Street 3.96% 8.01% 5.92% 24.86% 10.61% 13.96% 7.63% 8.54% Index S&P 500 Index 3.97% 8.04% 5.95% 24.99% 10.65% 14.02% 7.62% 8.53%
Composite Portfolio Returns 2.81% 5.71% 4.19% 17.86% 7.86% 10.14% 7.49% 7.70% Policy Benchmark Returns 2.65% 5.19% 3.90% 15.11% 7.53% 9.29% 6.57% 7.02%
DODGE & COX - The Fixed Income portfolio manager outperformed its benchmark in February 2017 by 0.06%. Contributors to relative outperformance for the month included the portfolios’ overweight to corporate bonds and strong performance from certain commodity related credit holdings.
Other Data
The valuation of VTA’s securities is provided by Interactive Data Corporation (IDC), Merrill Lynch Securities Pricing Service and Bloomberg Generic Pricing Service. These firms are the leading providers of global securities data. They offer the largest information databases with current and historical prices on securities traded in all major markets.
This report complies with VTA’s adopted investment policies. Based on budgeted revenues and expenditures as well as actual transfers to/from reserves, there are sufficient funds available to meet expenditure requirements for the six months ending August 31, 2017.
Prepared By: Sean Bill, Investment Program Manager Memo No. 5853
Page 7 of 7 11.a VTA INVESTMENT COMPOSITE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE. PER GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE - SETTLEMENT DATE FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2017 SUMMARY: FEBRUARY 28, 2017 (1) Fiscal 17 Fiscal 17 Jan-17 Feb-17 Year-to-Date Year-to-Date Change for the Month Description Book Value Book Value Jan 2017 Feb 17 Realized Realized /Cost /Cost Earnings - $ Earnings - $ Earnings - $ VTA FUNDS 1 - Fixed Income - Long-Term Investment Pool 209,108,624 209,588,730 2,525,400 2,735,198 209,798 2 - Fixed Income - Mid-Term Investment Pool 561,427,860 561,933,092 4,089,482 4,581,971 492,489 3 - Fixed Income - Short-Term Investment Pool 213,559,913 213,773,939 1,067,203 1,253,480 186,277 4 - VTA Bond Funds with Fiscal Agent (2) 88,329,982 95,248,015 35,505 45,110 9,605 5 - Funds with LAIF Investment Pool 65,000,000 65,000,000 208,665 245,580 36,915 6 - Funds with Union Bank-Congestion Management 12,501,115 13,809,943 8,660 9,795 1,135 7 - Funds with Union Bank-Measure B 3,027,445 2,019,698 1,835 2,036 201 8 - Funds with Union Bank Pooled DDA account 67,137,022 28,958,174 45,850 61,665 15,815 Total VTA Funds 1,220,091,961 1,190,331,591 7,982,600 8,934,835 952,235
RETIREES' OPEB FUNDS 1 - Retirees' OPEB -Fixed Income 60,215,001 60,604,698 1,433,418 1,834,355 400,937 2 - Retirees' OPEB -State Street - Index 57,802,619 57,802,619 0 0 0 3 - Retirees' OPEB -State Street - EM 16,000,000 16,000,000 0 0 0 4 - Retirees' OPEB -US Core Real Estate - UBS 30,000,000 30,000,000 0 0 0 5 - Retirees' OPEB -Sky Bridge Capital 11,000,000 11,000,000 0 0 0 6 - Retirees' OPEB -Lighthouse Partners 11,000,000 11,000,000 0 0 0 186,017,620 186,407,317 1,433,418 1,834,355 400,937
ATU PENSION FUNDS 1 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Fixed Income 129,265,435 129,709,882 2,796,278 3,326,713 530,435 2 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Stock Large Cap Value - BOSTON 65,206,951 65,810,226 4,475,912 5,079,150 603,238 3 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -State Street - Index 15,782,135 15,782,135 2,900,860 2,900,860 0 4 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Stock Small Cap Value - WEDGE 39,336,236 39,402,569 4,269,986 4,336,333 66,347 5 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Int'l - Equity Growth - MFS 45,074,856 45,074,856 1,372,144 1,372,144 0 6 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Emerging Markets - State Street (3) 24,000,000 24,000,000 57,706 57,706 0 7 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -US Core Real Estate - UBS 35,000,000 35,000,000 0 0 0 8 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Sky Bridge Capital 22,000,000 22,000,000 0 0 0 9 -VTA/ATU Pension Fund -Lighthouse Partners 22,000,000 22,000,000 0 0 0 Total ATU Pension Funds 397,665,613 398,779,668 15,872,886 17,072,906 1,200,020
ATU SPOUSAL MEDICAL PLAN FUNDS 1 - ATU Spousal Med Fund -Dodge & Cox - Index 5,927,234 5,927,234 0 0 0 2 - ATU Spousal Med Fund -State Street - Index 7,607,187 7,607,187 0 0 0 Total ATU Spousal Plan Funds 13,534,421 13,534,421 0 0 0
Total Investments 1,817,309,615 1,789,052,997 25,288,904 27,842,096 2,553,192 Legend: (1) Total includes contributions / withdrawals made during current month. (2) Bonds Reserves and/or Debt Service Funds (3) Robeco EM Refund August 2016 $43,298, November 2016 $14,408 Attachment Page # 1 11.b VTA INVESTMENT COMPOSITE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE MONEY MANAGERS' TOTAL MARKET RETURN - TRADE DATE FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2017
SUMMARY: February 28, 2017 Total Market Value Feb Total Market Return Total Market Return (1) VTA Benchmark Prior Current $Unrealized %Unrealized Calendar Calendar Description Month Month Gain/Loss Gain/Loss YTD YTD
1 - Fixed Income Long-Term Investment Pool 208,412,608 209,119,073 706,465 0.34% 0.60% 0.49% 1 - Fixed Income Mid-Term Investment Pool 561,580,024 562,418,650 838,626 0.15% 0.32% 0.23% 2 - Fixed Income Short-Term Investment Pool 214,028,193 214,301,328 273,135 0.13% 0.25% 0.09% 3 - VTA Bond Funds with Fiscal Agents 88,329,982 95,248,015 4 - Funds with LAIF Investment Pool 65,000,000 65,000,000 5 - Funds with Union Bank-Congestion Management 12,501,115 13,809,943 6 - Funds with Union Bank-Measure B 3,027,445 2,019,698 7 - Funds with Union Bank DDA account 67,137,022 28,958,174 Total VTA Funds 1,220,016,389 1,190,874,881
1 - Retirees' OPEB - Fixed Income 61,613,977 62,143,469 529,492 0.86% 1.32% 0.87% 2 - Retirees' OPEB - State Street - Index 152,027,221 158,051,337 6,024,116 3.96% 5.92% 5.95% 3 - Retirees' OPEB - State Street EM 17,519,160 18,024,963 3 - Retirees' OPEB - US Core Real Estate (2) 31,908,124 31,908,124 5 - Retirees' OPEB - Sky Bridge (2) 11,072,807 11,188,439 6 - Retirees' OPEB - Lighthouse (2) 11,412,841 11,504,554 Total Retirees' OPEB Funds 285,554,130 292,820,886
1 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund-Fixed Income 131,528,088 132,528,772 1,000,684 0.76% 1.24% 0.87% 2 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund-Stock Large Cap Value 78,377,646 81,577,918 3,200,272 4.08% 4.71% 4.33% 3 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund-State Street - Index 53,001,392 55,101,585 2,100,193 3.96% 5.92% 5.95% 4 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund-Stock Small Cap Value 53,109,217 53,620,732 511,515 0.96% 1.27% 0.73% 5 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund- Int'l - Equity Growth 65,786,269 66,642,641 856,372 1.30% 4.84% 6.12% 6 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund- Emerging Markets S. Street 26,278,470 27,037,444 7 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund- US Core Real Estate (2) 60,184,645 60,184,645 8 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund- Sky Bridge (2) 22,145,613 22,376,878 9 - VTA/ATU Pension Fund- Lighthouse (2) 22,825,682 23,009,108 Total Pension Fund 513,237,022 522,079,723
1 - ATU Spousal Med Fund - Dodge & Cox - Index 8,749,916 8,814,065 64,149 0.73% 1.10% 0.87% 2 - ATU Spousal Med Fund-State Street - Index 15,785,590 16,411,097 625,507 3.96% 5.92% 5.95% Total ATU Spousal Funds 24,535,506 25,225,162
Total Investments 2,043,343,047 2,031,000,652
Legend: (1) Total includes contributions / withdrawals made during current month. (2) Performance reported quarterly. Attachment Page # 2 12
Date: April 11, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Government & Public Relations, Jim Lawson
SUBJECT: Legislative Update Matrix
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
The Legislative Update Matrix summarizes the key bills that are being considered by the California State Legislature during the first year of the 2017-2018 regular session. The matrix indicates the status of these measures and any VTA positions with regard to them.
DISCUSSION:
After some last-minute arm-twisting on the part of Gov. Jerry Brown, Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D- Lakewood) to lock down the necessary votes, both chambers of the Legislature, on April 6, 2017, passed SB 1 (Beall) by the required two-thirds majority. The vote in the Senate was 27- 11. In the Assembly, it was 54-26. The Governor is expected to sign the bill into law.
Roughly two years in the making, SB 1 reflects a compromise that recently emerged from a series of intense and productive negotiations involving the Governor and the two Democratic legislative leaders over a two-week period. This comprehensive measure, perhaps the most significant transportation funding proposal in more than 25 years, would raise new revenues from a number of different sources to address various transportation funding needs, as well as put in place several important transportation policy reforms. Subject to voter approval, all of the new revenues would be protected from being diverted or borrowed for non-transportation purposes through ACA 5 (Frazier), a companion constitutional amendment. ACA 5, which also passed the Legislature on April 6, will be placed on the June 2018 ballot.
SB 1 establishes the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be funded with revenues derived from the following sources:
12
Effective November 1, 2017, an increase in the gasoline excise tax of 12 cents per gallon, which would be indexed annually to inflation.
Effective November 1, 2017, an increase of 20 cents per gallon in the diesel excise tax, which would be indexed annually to inflation. Under the provisions of SB 1, half of the revenues from this increase would be deposited into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. The other 50 percent would go to a new Trade Corridors Enhancement Fund for corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state. Follow-up legislation most likely will be needed to provide more detail about how the money dedicated to the Trade Corridors Enhancement Fund would be allocated.
A portion of the revenues from a new transportation improvement fee assessed per year, beginning January 1, 2018 that would range from $25 to $175 based on the market value of an individual’s vehicle. This fee would be indexed to inflation on an annual basis.
Effective July 1, 2020, a new vehicle registration surcharge of $100 per year imposed on zero-emission vehicles, which would be indexed to inflation every year. This surcharge would be paid starting with the second year of ownership of a new zero-emission vehicle model year 2020 or later.
After deducting the administrative expenses incurred by the State Controller’s Office, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and others to carry out their responsibilities pursuant to the bill, the revenues in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account would be distributed as follows:
$200 million per year would be allocated to local jurisdictions that have sought and gained voter approval of a local transportation special tax, or that have imposed uniform developer or other fees solely for transportation improvements. SB 1 requires the CTC to develop guidelines to define the specific methodology that would be used to distribute these funds. The legislation calls for the money to be allocated to each eligible county and to each city within that county for roadway maintenance and rehabilitation purposes.
$100 million per year would be distributed to the existing Active Transportation Program for bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects.
$400 million per year would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges and culverts on the state highway system.
$25 million per year would go to support Freeway Service Patrols throughout the state.
For FY 2018 through FY 2022, $5 million per year would be allocated to the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies in implementing policies to promote pre-apprenticeship training programs.
$25 million per year would be allocated to Caltrans for local and regional planning grants. SB 1 provides that these funds are to be used to encourage local and regional
Page 2 of 6 12
planning that furthers state goals as provided in the regional transportation guidelines adopted by the CTC. The measure requires Caltrans to develop a grant guide in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Office of Planning & Research, and the Department of Housing & Community Development.
$5 million and $2 million per year would be distributed to the University of California and the California State University systems, respectively, to conduct transportation research, as well as to fund transportation-related workforce education, training and development activities.
50 percent of the amount remaining after the aforementioned takedowns would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system, and for rehabilitation projects programmed in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).
50 percent of the amount remaining after the aforementioned takedowns would be provided to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. Funds would be equally divided between cities and counties, with the cities’ portion being allocated by a formula based on population, and the counties’ share by a formula based on vehicle registrations and miles of maintained county roads. SB 1 include a “maintenance of effort” requirement to ensure that these new funds would augment existing local budgets for roadway repairs. Cities and counties may use their formula shares for any of the following: (1) road maintenance and rehabilitation; (2) safety projects; (3) railroad grade separations; (4) complete street components in conjunction with any other allowable project, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, public transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects; (5) traffic control devices; or (6) to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain federal or state money for any allowable project under the bill. If a city or county can demonstrate that it has attained a Pavement Condition Index of 80 or higher, it may spend its formula share on other transportation priorities.
SB 1 requires Caltrans and cities/counties, to the extent possible and cost effective, to do all of the following in expending their Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account dollars:
Use advanced technologies and material recycling techniques that: (1) reduce the cost of maintaining and rehabilitating roadway facilities; and (2) exhibit reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions through material choice and construction methods.
Accommodate advanced automotive technologies, such as charging or fueling opportunities for zero-emission vehicles, and infrastructure-to-vehicle communications for autonomous vehicle systems.
Include features in their projects that make them more resilient to climate change risks.
Incorporate complete streets elements into their projects.
In addition, SB 1 requires Caltrans and cities/counties that receive money from the Road
Page 3 of 6 12
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to follow new workforce training guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board pursuant to the bill.
SB 1 provides new funding for public transit, which would be derived from the following sources:
Effective November 1, 2017, a new diesel sales tax rate of 3.5 percent for the State Transit Assistance Program (STA). Public transit agencies could use their formula shares for any eligible STA operating or capital expenditure. According to estimates prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), VTA could expected to receive $8.6 million per year.
Effective November 1, 2017, a new diesel sales tax rate of 0.5 percent for intercity and commuter rail. Under the provisions of SB 1, 50 percent of the revenues would be allocated by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to the three state- supported intercity rail operators, including the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Board. Each intercity rail operator would receive a minimum of 25 percent of these funds, with CalSTA having the flexibility to allocate the remainder to any operator. The other 50 percent of the revenues derived from this diesel sales tax would be distributed by CalSTA to the state’s five commuter rail operators, including Caltrain. For FY 2018 through FY 2020, each commuter rail operator would receive an equal share. After FY 2020, the funds would be allocated based on guidelines and a formula developed by CalSTA. SB 1 allows intercity and commuter rail operators to use these dollars for either operating or capital expenditures.
$350 million per year (adjusted annually for inflation) from the revenues generated by the new transportation improvement fee to be split 70 percent to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program ($245 million), and 30 percent to STA ($105 million). In the case of the latter, SB 1 requires public transit agencies to expend their formula shares for activities related to: (1) repairing, maintaining, rehabilitating, or modernizing their existing vehicles or facilities; (2) designing, acquiring or construction new vehicles or facilities that would improve existing services or allow for the implementation of future planned services; or (3) transit services that complement local efforts to repair and improve local transportation infrastructure. According to MTC estimates, VTA could expect to receive $3.6 million a year.
SB 1 creates a new Solutions for Congested Corridors Program to fund projects related to implementing a balanced set of transportation, environmental and community access improvements along highly congested travel corridors pursuant to a comprehensive corridor plan. The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program would receive $250 million per year from the revenues generated by the new transportation improvement fee, which would not be adjusted for inflation. The funds would be awarded by the CTC on a competitive basis. The CTC is required to develop guidelines for the program in consultation with CARB.
SB 1 specifies that a project, in order to qualify for funding under the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, must be included in a “comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce
Page 4 of 6 12
congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices for residents, commuters and visitors to the area of the corridor while preserving the character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects.” Under the provisions of the bill, eligible projects for funding include improvements to state highways, local streets/roads, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or restoration or preservation work that protects critical local habitat or open space. Highway capacity expansion projects are not eligible, with the exception of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, express lanes, or non-general-purpose lane improvements such as auxiliary lanes, truck-climbing lanes or dedicated bicycle lanes.
Under the provisions of SB 1, regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), county transportation commissions and the state may nominate projects for funding under the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program either alone or jointly, though a preference would be given to joint projects. The legislation requires a project sponsor to include quantitative and qualitative measures in its application in order to demonstrate that the project meets the goals of program. In addition, SB 1 spells out eight scoring criteria for the CTC to use in evaluating candidate projects for funding. No more than half of the money each year may be programmed by the CTC to projects nominated exclusively by the state.
In addition to raising new revenues for transportation purposes, SB 1 would:
Address the volatility of the variable portion of the state’s gasoline excise tax by: (1) ending the Board of Equalization’s annual adjustments, and converting the variable rate to a fix rate of 17.3 cents per gallon, effective July 1, 2019; and (2) indexing the fixed rate to inflation every year to maintain purchasing power. These revenues would continue to be allocated according to existing law, as follows: (1) 44 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); (2) 44 percent to cities/counties for local streets/roads; and (3) 12 percent to the SHOPP. The 44-44-12 split occurs after backfilling the State Highway Account for the loss of vehicle weight fee revenues to the General Fund for transportation bond debt service.
End the erosion of purchasing power of the 18-cent-per-gallon “base” gas tax and the existing 16-cent-per gallon diesel excise tax by indexing them to inflation on an annual basis.
Require Caltrans to implement efficiency measures with the goal of generating at least $100 million per year in savings to invest in maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system. The legislation requires Caltrans to report these savings to the CTC.
SB 1 requires the repayment of $706 million in prior-year loans made to the General Fund from various transportation accounts in equal installments over the next three fiscal years. The entire amount is required to be repaid no later than June 30, 2020. These one-time revenues would be distributed as follows:
$236 million to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. $20 million for climate change adaptation planning grants to local and regional agencies.
Page 5 of 6 12
$225 million for the SHOPP. $225 million to cities and counties for local streets/roads.
MTC estimates that local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County could expect to receive a total of approximately $60.5 million per year for local roadways under SB 1. According to MTC, this amount would be split $26.6 million to the county and $33.9 million to the 15 cities.
Finally, SB 1 includes several key policy reforms. These include:
Creating an Independent Office of Audits and Investigation to ensure that Caltrans and entities receiving state or federal transportation funds from the department are expending those dollars efficiently, effectively, economically, and in compliance with applicable state and federal requirements.
Strengthening the CTC’s oversight of Caltrans with regard to the expenditure of SHOPP funds.
Tasking the CTC with the responsibility of overseeing the expenditure of the new funding that Caltrans and cities/counties would receive pursuant to the bill.
Establishing an Advance Mitigation Program within Caltrans to allow the department to undertake environmental mitigation for future planned transportation projects in advance of construction. SB 1 requires $30 million a year to be set aside over a four-year period (FY 2018 through FY 2021) from the annual appropriations for the STIP, SHOPP or a combination of the two for this program.
Requires Caltrans to develop a plan by January 1, 2019, to increase by up to 100 percent the dollar value of contracts and procurements awarded to small businesses, disadvantaged business enterprises and disabled veteran business enterprises.
Finally, SB 1 includes a provision that limits CARB from requiring truck owners to retrofit, repower or retire truck engines that meet existing emissions standards before they are 13 years old or reach 800,000 miles. The intent of this provision is to ensure that truck owners have time to recoup their investment in cleaner engine technology before being faced with newer, stricter emissions reduction mandates. SB 1 includes language stating that the bill does not limit the authority of CARB or regional air districts to regulate the trucking industry in other ways.
Prepared By: Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager Memo No. 5883
Page 6 of 6 12.a LEGISLATIVE UPDATE MATRIX
1B2015 2017 State Legislative Session
April2B 6, 2017
2017 Regular Session Calendar
DAY JANUARY4B DAY JUNE8B 1 Statutes signed into law in 2016 take effect. 2 Last day for bills to be passed out of their house of origin. 4 Legislature reconvenes. 15 Budget must be passed by midnight. 10 Budget must be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature on or before this date.
14B DAY JULY9B 20 Last day to submit bill requests to the Legislative Counsel’s Office. 14 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills introduced in the other house.
DAY 5B FEBRUARY 21 Last day for policy committees to hear and report non-fiscal bills introduced 17 Last day for new bills to be introduced. in the other house. Summer Recess begins upon adjournment, provided that the Budget Bill has been enacted. DAY MARCH
None. DAY AUGUST10B 21 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess. DAY APRIL6B
6 Spring Recess begins upon adjournment. DAY SEPTEMBER11B 17 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess. 1 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced in the other house. 28 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills introduced in their house of origin. 8 Last day to amend bills on the Assembly and Senate floors. 15 Last day for each house to pass bills. Interim Recess begins at the end of this day’s session. DAY MAY7B
12 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills
introduced in their house of origin. DAY OCTOBER12B 26 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the floor bills introduced 15 Last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature in their house of origin. before September 15, and in his possession on or after September 15.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Assembly Bills
State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1 Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be funded from the following As Assembly Support (Frazier) sources: (1) an increase in the gasoline excise tax of 12 cents per gallon, which would be indexed Introduced Transportation Transportation to inflation every three years; (2) a registration surcharge of $38 per year imposed on all motor Committee Funding vehicles, which would be indexed to inflation every three years; (3) a registration surcharge of $165 per year imposed on zero-emission vehicles starting with the second year of ownership, which would be indexed to inflation every three years; and (4) revenues obtained by Caltrans through the rental or sale of property, the sale of documents, and charges for other miscellaneous services provided to the public. Distributes the revenues deposited into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account in the following manner: (1) $200 million per year would be taken off the top for allocation to local jurisdictions that have sought and gained voter approval of a local transportation special tax, or that have imposed uniform developer or other fees solely for transportation improvements; (b) $80 million per year would be taken off the top and distributed to the Active Transportation Program; (c) for FY 2018 through FY 2021, $30 million per year would be taken off the top to be used to fund the implementation of advance environmental mitigation plans for future transportation projects; (4) $2 million per year would be taken off the top and distributed to the California State University to conduct transportation research, and transportation- related workforce education, training and development; (5) $3 million would be taken off the top and distributed to the University of California for institutes of transportation studies; (6) 50 percent of the amount remaining after the aforementioned set-asides would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system, and for projects programmed in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP); and (6) 50 percent of the amount remaining after the aforementioned set-asides would be provided to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. Provides new funding for public transit through the following sources: (1) an increase in the diesel sales tax by a rate of 3.5 percent for the State Transit Assistance Program (STA); (2) an increase in the percentage of cap-and-trade auction proceeds continuously appropriated to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program from 10 percent to 20 percent; and (3) an increase in the percentage of cap-and-trade auction proceeds continuously appropriated to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program from 5 percent to 10 percent. Increases the diesel excise tax by 20 cents per gallon, which would be indexed to inflation every three years, and deposits these revenues into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund for goods movement projects programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires revenues apportioned to California from the formula- based National Highway Freight Program to be deposited into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund. Converts the variable gas tax to a fixed rate of 17.3 cents per gallon, which would be indexed to inflation every three years. Requires the repayment of approximately $700 million in outstanding loans owed by the General Fund to various transportation accounts over a two-year period ending June 30, 2018. Distributes these one-time revenues in the following manner: (1) 50 percent to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system, and for SHOPP projects; and (2) 50 percent to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. Recaptures $500 million of the annual amount of vehicle weight fee revenues for the State Highway Account over a five-year period ending June 30, 2022. 2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 5 Enacts the Opportunity to Work Act. Requires an employer with 10 or more employees to offer As Assembly Labor (Gonzalez-Fletcher) additional hours of work to an existing employee who, in the employer’s reasonable judgment, has Introduced & Employment Opportunity to Work the skills and experience to perform the additional work, before hiring any additional employees or Committee Act subcontractors. Requires an employer to use a transparent and non-discriminatory process to distribute the additional hours of work among existing employees. Specifies that an employer shall not be required to offer an existing employee additional work hours if the employer would be required to compensate the employee with overtime pay under any law or collective bargaining agreement. Requires an employer to retain all of the following: (1) for any new hire of an employee or subcontractor, documentation that the employer offered additional hours of work to existing employees prior to hiring the new employee or subcontractor; (2) work schedules of all employees; and (3) any additional records or documents that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement requires an employer to maintain to demonstrate compliance with this bill. Authorizes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the bill. Allows an employee to file a complaint for a violation of the provisions of the bill with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Provides that it is unlawful for an employer or any other party to discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any employee in retaliation for exercising his or her rights under the bill. To the extent required by federal law, authorizes all or any portion of the applicable requirements of the bill to be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement provided that such waiver is explicitly set forth in the agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. AB 12 By January 1, 2020, requires each state agency to do all of the following: (1) review all provisions As Assembly (Cooley) of the California Code of Regulations adopted by that agency; (2) identify any regulations that are Introduced Appropriations State Agency duplicative, overlapping, inconsistent, or out of date; and (3) adopt, amend or repeal regulations to Committee Regulations reconcile or eliminate any duplication, overlap, inconsistencies, or out-of-date provisions. By January 1, 2020, requires each state agency, if applicable, to notify a department, board or other unit within that agency of any existing regulation adopted by that department, board or other unit that the agency has determined may be duplicative, overlapping or inconsistent with a regulation adopted by another department, board or other unit within that agency. Requires the department, board or other unit to notify the agency of revisions to regulations that it proposes to make to address any duplication, overlap or inconsistencies.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 17 Creates the Transit Pass Program to support local programs that provide free or reduced-fare public As Assembly (Holden) transit passes to any of the following: (1) pupils attending public middle schools or high schools Introduced Transportation Transit Pass Program that are eligible for funding under Title 1 of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; (2) Committee students attending a California community college who qualify for a waiver of student fees pursuant to the Education Code; or (3) a student who attends a campus of the California State University or the University of California, and who receives an award under the Cal Grant Program, the federal Pell Grant Program, or both. Requires Caltrans to administer this program. Provides that the Transit Pass Program is to be funded from money made available for this purpose through appropriations by the Legislature. Requires Caltrans to develop guidelines describing the criteria that eligible transit providers shall use to make available free or reduced-fare transit passes to eligible participants. Defines “eligible transit provider” to mean a transportation agency, transportation planning agency or county transportation commission that is eligible to receive State Transit Assistance Program (STA) funding. Defines “eligible participants” to mean a public agency, including a transit operator, school district, community college district, the California State University, or the University of California. Requires Caltrans to develop performance measures and reporting requirements to evaluate the effectiveness of the Transit Pass Program, including an annual update of the number of free or reduced-fare transit passes distributed to students and whether the program is increasing transit ridership among students. Requires funds allocated to the Transit Pass Program to be expended to provide low- or no-cost transit passes to students through programs that support new or existing transit pass programs. Allows a an eligible transit provider to give priority to an application from an eligible participant with an existing, successful transit pass program, provided that the eligible participant can demonstrate that the additional funds will further reduce the cost of the transit pass or expand program eligibility. Requires each eligible transit provider to receive $20,000 from the Transit Pass Program. After the initial $20,000 amount is allocated, requires the remaining program funds to be distributed according to the STA formula. Requires any funds allocated during a fiscal year, but not distributed, to be added to the allocation for the following fiscal year. AB 28 Reinstates the statutory authorization for Caltrans to participate in a federal program that allows 3/2/17 Signed into Support (Frazier) states to assume the responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under the Law: Chapter Federal Environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, reinstates provisions that authorize #4 Review Process Caltrans to consent to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the assumption of FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA and that waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment protection against NEPA-related lawsuits brought in federal court. Repeals the provisions of the bill on January 1, 2020.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 33 By March 30, 2018, requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize 3/23/17 Assembly (Quirk) electrical corporations to offer programs and investments in electric vehicle service equipment Communications Electric Vehicle installed in residential garages of customers who purchase a used electric vehicle. Requires such & Conveyance Service Equipment programs and investments to be designed to: (1) accelerate widespread transportation Committee electrification; (2) achieve ratepayer benefits; (3) reduce dependence on petroleum; (4) meet air quality standards; and (5) reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Requires the CPUC to approve, or modify and approve, each proposal to offer such programs and investments filed by an electrical corporation within six months of the date of filing of the completed proposal. Specifies that customers of an electrical corporation participating in a resident garage electric vehicle charging program to receive electrical service pursuant to a grid-integrated rate. Defines “grid-integrated rate” to mean an electrical service rate design that reflects dynamic electrical grid conditions. AB 65 Prohibits money in the Transportation Debt Service Fund from being used to pay debt service for As Assembly (Patterson) bonds issued pursuant to the Safe, Reliable high-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Introduced Transportation High-Speed Rail Bond Century (Proposition 1A). Committee Debt Service AB 66 Requires the business plan prepared by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to identify As Assembly (Patterson) projected financing costs for each segment or combination of segments of the high-speed rail Introduced Transportation California High-Speed system for which financing is proposed by the authority. In the business plan and in other reports Committee Rail Authority: that High-Speed Rail Authority is required to prepare, specifies that the authority shall call out any Reporting significant changes in scope for segments of the high-speed rail system identified in the previous Requirements version of the report, and provide an explanation of adjustments in cost and schedule attributable to the changes. AB 77 Requires the Office of Administrative Law to submit each major regulation to both the Assembly 2/7/17 Assembly (Fong) and Senate for review. Provides that a regulation shall not become effective if the Legislature Appropriations Regulations: enacts a statute to override it. Committee Legislative Review AB 87 Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to revoke the registration of an autonomous As Assembly (Ting) vehicle that is being operated on public streets or roads in violation of current state law. Authorizes Introduced Transportation Autonomous Vehicles a peace officer to cause the removal and seizure of an autonomous vehicle operating on public Committee streets or roads with a registration that has been revoked by the DMV. Authorizes the DMV to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 per day that an autonomous vehicle is operated on public streets roads in violation of current state law.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 91 Beginning July 1, 2018, prohibits a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from being established in 3/22/17 Assembly (Cervantes) Riverside County, unless the lane is established as an HOV lane only during the hours of heavy Appropriations HOV Lanes: commuter traffic, as determined by Caltrans. Requires any existing HOV lane in Riverside County Committee Riverside County that is not a toll lane to be modified to operate as an HOV lane under those same conditions. Specifies that those two provisions of the bill would apply only to the extent that they do not endanger federal funding. On or after May 1, 2019, authorizes Caltrans to reinstate 24-hour HOV lanes in Riverside County if the department determines that there is an adverse impact on safety, traffic conditions or the environment by limiting the use of HOV lanes during hours of heavy commuter traffic. Before reinstating 24-hour HOV lanes in Riverside County, requires Caltrans to notify the Assembly Transportation Committee, and the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee. AB 92 Extends the sunset date from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2023, for provisions in current law that As Assembly (Bonta) authorize the retention proceeds withheld from any payment by a public entity from the original Introduced Appropriations Public Contracts: contractor, by the original contractor from any subcontractor, and by a subcontractor from any Committee Retention Proceeds other subcontractor to exceed 5 percent if: (1) a finding is made prior to contract bid that the project is substantially complex and requires a higher retention; and (2) this finding and the actual retention amount is included in the bid documents. AB 151 Authorizes the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to utilize a market-based compliance 3/2/17 Assembly (Burke) mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond December 31, 2020. Requires CARB to Natural Cap-and-Trade report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature to receive input, guidance Resources Extension and assistance before adopting guidelines and regulations to implement the Scoping Plan for Committee ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. By January 1, 2019, requires CARB to report to the Legislature on the need for increased education, career technical education, job training, and workforce development in ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. Establishes the Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force to investigate, analyze and provide guidance to CARB in approving new offset protocols for a market-based compliance mechanism, with a priority on the development of new urban offset protocols. AB 161 Authorizes the Department of Finance to identify infrastructure projects in the state for which the As Assembly (Levine) department will guarantee a rate of return for an investment made in that infrastructure project by Introduced Appropriations CalPERS: the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). Creates the Reinvesting in California Committee Infrastructure Special Fund as a continuously appropriated fund. Requires money in the fund to be used to pay Investments the rate of return on investments made in infrastructure projects. States the intent of the Legislature to identify special fund dollars to be transferred to the Reinvesting in California Special Fund. AB 174 Requires at least one voting member of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reside As Assembly (Bigelow) in a rural county with a population of less than 100,000 people. Introduced Transportation California Committee Transportation Commission: Rural County Representation
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 179 Requires seven of the voting members of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to have 2/14/17 Assembly (Cervantes) the following qualifications: (1) two members shall have worked directly with those communities Transportation California in the state that are most significantly burdened by, and vulnerable to, high levels of pollution, Committee Transportation including those communities with racially and ethnically diverse populations or with low-income Commission: Member populations; (2) one member shall have training and experience in sustainable transportation that Qualifications includes addressing bicycle and pedestrian safety issues; (3) one member shall have training and experience in sustainable transportation that includes addressing public transit issues; (4) one member shall have training and experience in, or be an authority on, the public health effects of transportation; (5) one member shall have training and experience in, or be an authority on, climate change mitigation, including the role of transportation projects on that mitigation; and (6) one member shall have training and experience in, or be an authority on, climate change mitigation, including the role of transportation projects with regard to such mitigation. Requires the CTC to create an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to advise the commission in its allocation and programming of transportation funding, and any other pertinent transportation policy matters. Requires this advisory committee to be comprised of at least five members. Requires each member of the advisory committee to represent a community disproportionately burdened by, and vulnerable to, high levels of pollution and other environmental justice issues, including communities with diverse racial and ethnic populations or with low-income populations. Requires the CTC to appoint only individuals nominated by environmental justice organizations and community groups to the advisory committee. Requires the CTC and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to hold at least two joint meetings per calendar year to coordinate their implementation of transportation policies. AB 195 If a ballot measure proposed by a local governing body calls for imposing a tax or raising the rate 3/14/17 Assembly Floor (Obernolte) of a current tax, requires the ballot to include in the statement of the measure to be voted on the Local Government amount of money to be raised annually, and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied. Requires Ballot Measures the statement of the measure to be a true and impartial synopsis of its purpose, and to be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. AB 278 Exempts from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a project that consists of the As Assembly (Steinorth) inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or removal of existing transportation Introduced Natural CEQA Exemption for infrastructure, including highways, roadways, bridges, tunnels, culverts, public transit systems, Resources Certain Transportation bikeways, paths and sidewalks serving bicycles or pedestrians, and the addition of auxiliary lanes Committee Projects or bikeways to existing transportation infrastructure, if the project meets all of the following conditions: (1) the project is located within an existing right-of-way; (2) any area surrounding the right-of-way that is to be altered as a result of construction activities that are necessary for the completion of the project will be restored to its condition before the project; and (3) the project does not add additional motor vehicle lanes, except auxiliary lanes.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 301 Beginning July 1, 2018, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to accept a certificate 3/28/17 Assembly (Rodriguez) of driving skill issued by a licensed truck driving school, an accredited public or private Transportation Driver’s License: postsecondary institution, a union, an independent testing center, or municipality of which a Committee Certification of driver’s license applicant is a member, student, client, or resident, as appropriate, in lieu of a Driving Skill driving test on Class A or B applications, if the applicant has: (1) first qualified for a Class C license; and (2) met the other examination requirements for the license for which he or she is applying. By January 1, 2023, requires the DMV to submit a report to the Legislature comparing the safety of drivers who have obtained their Class A or B endorsement pursuant to the provisions of this bill to those who have obtain such endorsements by taking a driving test administered by the department. AB 332 Allows a local authority to temporarily close a highway under its jurisdiction to through traffic in 3/9/17 Assembly Floor (Bocanegra) order to curb a serious nuisance, including illegal dumping. Also allows a local authority to Local Street Closures temporarily close a highway under its jurisdiction that has been designated as a through highway or arterial street if the closure can be accomplished without a significant impact to the flow of traffic.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 342 Authorizes the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to implement a five-year pilot 4/6/17 Assembly Support (Chiu) program utilizing an automated speed enforcement (ASE) system for speed limit enforcement on Privacy & Automated Speed streets or portions of streets that: (1) have a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or less; and (2) have Consumer Enforcement: San had a documented incidence of collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries as evidenced by either a Protection Jose and San Francisco three-year fatality and injury collision rate, or a three-year fatality rate that is higher than the three- Committee Five-Year Pilot year collision and fatality rates published by Caltrans for comparable roadways. Requires the ASE Program system to be activated no later than January 1, 2019, and to be operated for no longer than five years. Requires the ASE system to meet all of the following: (1) is operated in cooperation with a law enforcement agency; (2) clearly identifies the presence of the fixed or mobile ASE system by signs stating “Photo Enforced” along with the posted speed limit; (3) identifies vehicles containing a mobile ASE system with distinctive markings; (4) identifies the streets or portions of the streets that have been approved for enforcement using an ASE system and the hours of enforcement on the municipality’s Internet Web site; (5) utilizes trained peace officers or other trained designated municipal employees to oversee the operation of the ASE system and maintain control over enforcement activities; (6) ensures that the ASE system is regularly inspected, and certifies that the system is installed and operated properly; and (7) utilizes fixed and mobile systems that provide real-time notification when violations are detected. Prior to enforcing speed limits using an ASE system, requires the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to do both of the following: (1) administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the initial commencement of the use of the system; and (2) issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for the first violations detected by the ASE system during the first 90 calendars days of enforcement. If the ASE system is utilized on additional streets after initial implementation, requires the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations during the first 30 calendar days of enforcement for the additional streets. Requires the governing body of the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to adopt an ASE System Use Policy to include all of the following: (1) specific purposes for the ASE system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required prior to that use, and the uses that are prohibited; (2) the data or information that can be collected by the ASE system, the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access or use of the information; and (3) provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the policy. Requires the governing body of the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to approve an ASE System Impact Report to include all of the following: (1) description of the ASE system and how it works; (2) proposed purpose of the ASE system; (3) locations where the ASE system may be deployed, and traffic data for those locations; (4) assessment of the potential impact of the ASE system on civil liberties and civil rights, and any plans to safeguard those public rights; and (5) fiscal costs associated with the ASE system. Requires the city of San Jose and the city/county of San Francisco to develop uniform guidelines that must be approved by the local law enforcement agency for both of the following: (1) the screening and issuing of notices of violations; and (2) the processing and storage of confidential information, and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements. Specifies that a speed violation recorded by the ASE system shall be subject only to a civil penalty, the total amount of which cannot exceed $100.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 344 Specifies that a person contesting a notice of a toll evasion violation or a notice of a delinquent toll As Senate Rules (Melendez) evasion violation shall not be required to pay the penalty until after it is found that the person Introduced Committee Toll Evasion committed the violation. Violations AB 351 Requires loans of revenues to the General Fund from the State Highway Account, the Public As Assembly (Melendez) Transportation Account (PTA), the Bicycle Transportation Account, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Introduced Transportation Transportation Account, the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), the Pedestrian Safety Account, the Committee Funding: Loan Transportation Investment Fund, the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF), the Motor Vehicle Repayments, Vehicle Account, and the Local Airport Loan Account to be repaid by December 31, 2018, to the account or Weight Fees and Non- fund from which the loan was made. Specifies that this requirement applies to all loans that Article 19 otherwise have a repayment date of January 1, 2019, or later. Eliminates the annual transfer of Transportation vehicle weight fee revenues from the State Highway Account to the General Fund for payment of Revenues debt service for general obligation bonds issued for transportation purposes and, instead, retains these revenues in the State Highway Account. Deletes provisions in current law relating to the reimbursement of the State Highway Account with gasoline excise tax revenues for vehicle weight fee revenues transferred to the General Fund and, instead, allows these gasoline excise tax revenues to be allocated in the following manner: (1) 44 percent to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); (2) 44 to cities and counties for local streets/roads; and (3) 44 percent to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). Eliminates the annual transfer of so-called Non-Article 19 revenues obtained by Caltrans through the rental or sale of property, the sale of documents, and charges for other miscellaneous services provided to the public to the General Fund, and, instead, retains these revenues in the State Highway Account for transportation purposes. AB 378 Authorizes the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt or subsequently revise new As Assembly (C. Garcia) regulations that establish a market-based compliance mechanism, applicable from January 1, 2021, Introduced Natural Greenhouse Gas to December 31, 2030, to complement direct emissions reduction measures in ensuring that Resources Emissions Reductions statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by Committee 2030. Requires CARB, in ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030, to adopt the most effective and equitable mix of emissions reduction measures, and to ensure that such measures collectively and individually support achieving air quality and other environmental and public health goals. AB 382 Deletes provisions in current law requiring $833,000 per month to be transferred from the Off- As Assembly (Voepel) Highway Vehicle Trust Fund to the General Fund and, instead, retains these revenues in the trust Introduced Appropriations Off-Highway Vehicle fund for off-highway motor vehicle recreation purposes. Committee Trust Fund
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 398 Requires the annual report submitted by the Department of Finance to the Legislature regarding the 3/28/17 Assembly (E. Garcia) status of projects funded with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Appropriations Greenhouse Gas Fund to include, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) the greenhouse gas emissions reductions Committee Reduction Fund: attributable to each project; (2) the environmental and public health benefits, as applicable, Department of Finance attributable to each project; (3) actions and outcomes from those actions taken to assist residents of Report disadvantaged communities and other target populations with the business, employment and training opportunities offered through activities funded in whole or in part with money from the fund; (4) the geographic location, industry sector and number of employees of the business entities receiving money from the fund; (5) the number of jobs created, including wage levels, by the business entities receiving money from the fund; and (6) the amount of other public or private money leveraged with investments from the fund. Requires state agencies expending cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to condition the acceptance of the money on the recipient providing the information necessary to meet the reporting requirements of this bill. Defines “targeted populations” to mean communities and groups of individuals experiencing high levels of unemployment or poverty. Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to appoint a dedicated ombudsman to respond to requests for data and analyses that are not readily available to the public. Requires CARB to process such requests in a timely manner. Requires CARB and regional air districts to coordinate efforts to share data on the emissions of air pollutants, including greenhouse gases. AB 408 Changes the standards by which courts decide whether to award litigation expenses in eminent As Assembly (Chen) domain actions. Provides that if a court finds, on motion of the defendant, that the offer of the Introduced Judiciary Eminent Domain: plaintiff was lower than 90 percent of the compensation awarded in the proceeding, then the court Committee Final Offer of would be required to include the defendant’s litigation expenses in the costs allowed. Provides that Compensation if the court finds that the offer of the plaintiff was at least 90 percent and less than 100 percent of the compensation awarded in the proceeding, then the court may include the defendant’s litigation expenses in the costs allowed. AB 467 Exempts a local transportation authority from including the entire adopted expenditure plan for a As Assembly (Mullin) retail transactions and use tax in the voter information handbook if: (1) the authority posts the plan Introduced Elections & Local Transportation on its Internet Web site; and (2) the sample ballot and voter information handbook sent to voters Redistricting Authorities: include information on viewing an electronic version of the plan on the authority’s Internet Web Committee Expenditure Plans site and on obtaining a printed copy of the plan by calling the county election office. Requires the local transportation authority to provide sufficient copies of the plan to the county election office for mailing to each person requesting a printed copy. AB 468 Authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to issue a 3/23/17 Assembly (Santiago) prohibition order to any person cited for committing certain acts on LA Metro vehicles or at LA Transportation LA Metro: Prohibition Metro’s transit facilities, under which the person would be prohibited from entering the property, Committee Orders facilities or vehicles of LA Metro for a specified period of time.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 496 Creates the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account to be funded from the following 2/28/17 Assembly (Fong) sources: (1) sales and use tax revenues from new and used motor vehicle sales and purchases; (2) Transportation Transportation insurance tax revenues from automobile and motor vehicle policies; (3) specified diesel sales tax Committee Funding revenues transferred from the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program, if those revenues are backfilled with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; (4) specified vehicle registration fee revenues transferred from the Air Quality Improvement Fund, the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund, and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Subaccount, if those revenues are backfilled with cap-and-trade auction proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; and (5) revenues obtained by Caltrans through the rental or sale of property, the sale of documents, and charges for other miscellaneous services provided to the public. Distributes the revenues deposited into the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account in the following manner: (1) 40 percent would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system, and for projects programmed in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP); (2) 40 percent would be provided to cities and counties for their local roadway systems; and (3) 20 percent would be allocated for projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that create measurable reductions in traffic congestion. Requires revenues apportioned to California from the formula- based National Highway Freight Program to be deposited into the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) according to the original guidelines that the commission adopted for the fund in 2007. Requires the repayment of approximately $700 million in outstanding loans owed by the General Fund to various transportation accounts by December 31, 2017. Distributes these one-time revenues to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. Eliminates the annual transfer of vehicle weight fee revenues from the State Highway Account to the General Fund for payment of debt service for general obligation bonds issued for transportation purposes and, instead, retains these revenues in the State Highway Account. Deletes provisions in current law relating to the reimbursement of the State Highway Account with gasoline excise tax revenues for vehicle weight fee revenues transferred to the General Fund and, instead, allows these gasoline excise tax revenues to be allocated in the following manner: (1) 44 percent to the STIP; (2) 44 to cities and counties for local streets/roads; and (3) 44 percent to the SHOPP.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 515 Requires Caltrans to prepare a State Highway System Management Plan consisting of the existing As Assembly (Frazier) 10-year rehabilitation plan that forms the basis of the State Highway Operation and Protection Introduced Appropriations State Highway System Program (SHOPP), and a five-year maintenance plan addressing the maintenance needs of the state Committee Management Plan highway system. Requires the maintenance plan to include only maintenance activities that, if not performed, could result in increased SHOPP costs in the future. In addition, requires the maintenance plan to identify any existing backlog in those maintenance activities, and to recommend a strategy, specific activities and an associated funding level to reduce or prevent any backlog during the plan’s five-year period. Requires the State Highway System Management Plan to do all of the following: (1) include specific milestones, as well as quantifiable accomplishments, goals, objectives, and performance measures consistent with Caltrans’ Assets Management Plan; (2) contain strategies to control costs and improve the efficiency of the SHOPP; and (3) attempt to balance resources between the SHOPP and maintenance activities in order to achieve identified milestones and goals at the lowest possible long-term total cost. Requires the State Highway Management Plan to be updated every two years. AB 536 If compliance with a state law would result in a county losing federal funding, authorizes the As Assembly (Melendez) county to elect to not comply with that law to the extent that compliance jeopardizes its federal Introduced Judiciary Counties: Federal funding. Committee Funding AB 544 Provides that decals, stickers or other identifiers issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles 3/21/17 Assembly (Bloom) (DMV) prior to January 1, 2017, allowing battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell, compressed natural Transportation HOV Lanes: Low- gas, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes without the Committee Emission and Energy required number of occupants in the vehicle are valid until January 1, 2019. Provides that decals, Efficient Vehicles stickers or other identifies issued by the DMV to such vehicles on or after January 1, 2017, and before January 1, 2018, are valid until January 1, 2021. Provides that decals, stickers or other identifiers issued by the DMV to such vehicles on or after January 1, 2018, and before January 1, 2019, are valid until January 1, 2022. Provides that decals, stickers or other identifiers issued by the DMV to such vehicles on or after January 1, 2019, are valid until January 1 of the fourth year after the year of issuance. AB 570 In making a determination of apportionment of permanent disability based on causation for As Assembly (Gonzalez-Fletcher) purposes of payment of workers’ compensation, prohibits apportionment, in the case of a physical Introduced Insurance Workers’ injury occurring on or after January 1, 2018, from being based on pregnancy, childbirth, or other Committee Compensation: medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. Permanent Disability Causation
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 623 Requires an accident involving the operation of an autonomous vehicle that results in catastrophic As Assembly (Rodriguez) bodily injury or the death of a person to be reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Introduced Transportation Autonomous Vehicles: within 24 hours of occurrence. Requires the DMV to suspend the testing approval granted to the Committee Accidents manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle for five business days following the reporting of the accident. During the five-day suspension period, requires the DMV and other appropriate agencies to review the accident to determine if it was caused by a failure of the autonomous vehicle technology. If it is determined that the accident was caused by a failure of the vehicle technology, authorizes the DMV to revoke the manufacturer’s testing approval until the manufacturer provides the DMV and other appropriate agencies with evidence that the safety hazard has been resolved. AB 636 Requires the report by a city or county regarding Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) 3/28/17 Assembly Floor (Irwin) expenditures for street/road purposes during the preceding fiscal year to be submitted to the Local Streets/Roads: Controller’s Office within seven months of the close of the fiscal year, rather than by the first day Expenditure Reports of October, as is the case under current law. AB 673 Before placing a new bus into revenue service, requires a public transit agency to take into As Assembly (Chu) consideration the recommendations of, and the best practice standards developed by, the exclusive Introduced Transportation Public Transit representative of the recognized organization representing the agency’s operators for the purpose of Committee Operators: Vehicle protecting operators from the risk of assaults and removing blind spots. Before placing a new bus Safety Requirements into revenue service, requires a public transit agency to ensure that the bus is equipped, at a minimum, with all of the following: (1) transparent, glare-free, accessible partition enclosures around the bus operator seating area capable of withstanding gun fire; (2) a door or window at least the same size as a passenger emergency window to the left of the bus operator seating area that allows for safe and rapid emergency egress from the vehicle; (3) a mechanism that allows for a direct connection to local law enforcement, such as a panic button; (4) low-mounted, reasonably sized, left-side mirrors, as well as reasonably sized “A” pillars, that allow the bus operator, regardless of size, to adequately view pedestrians crossing in front of the bus; and (5) an overall bus operator seating area that eliminates blind spots to the greatest extent feasible. Specifies that these standards shall be implemented only to the extent that they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. AB 694 Except under specified conditions, requires a person operating a bicycle to ride in the right-hand As Assembly (Ting) lane or bicycle lane, if one is present, rather than as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or Introduced Transportation Bicycles edge of the roadway, as is the case under current law. Requires a person operating a bicycle in a Committee right-hand lane that is wide enough for a vehicle and a bicycle to travel safety side by side within the lane to ride far enough to the right in order to allow vehicles to pass, except under any of the following situations: (1) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it hazardous to continue along the right-hand edge of the lane; or (2) when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 697 Exempts a private ambulance from any requirement to pay a toll or other charge on a vehicular As Assembly (Fong) crossing, toll highway or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, if the following conditions are met: (1) Introduced Appropriations Toll Facilities: the private ambulance is properly displaying a valid California license plate, and is properly Committee Privately Owned identified or marked as a private ambulance; (2) the private ambulance is being driven while Emergency responding to or returning from an urgent or emergency call, engaged in an urgent or emergency Ambulances response, or engaging in a fire station coverage assignment directly related to an emergency response; and (3) the driver of the private ambulance determines that the use of the toll facility shall likely improve the availability or response and arrival time of the authorized emergency vehicle and its delivery of essential public safety services. AB 730 Eliminates the January 1, 2018, sunset date and makes permanent provisions in current law that As Assembly Floor (Quirk) authorize the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to issue a prohibition order to any person Introduced BART: Prohibition cited for committing certain acts on BART vehicles or at BART’s transit facilities, under which the Orders person would be prohibited from entering the property, facilities or vehicles of BART for a specified period of time. AB 733 Allows an enhanced infrastructure financing district to finance projects that enable communities to 3/23/17 Assembly Floor (Berman) adapt to the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, Enhanced heat waves, wildfires, and drought. Infrastructure Financing Districts: Climate Change Projects AB 765 Requires the election for a county, municipal or special district initiative measure that qualifies for As Assembly (Low) the ballot to be the next statewide election or the jurisdiction’s next regular election, as applicable, Introduced Elections & Local Initiative unless the governing body of the county, city or special district calls a special election. Redistricting Measures Committee AB 863 In selecting projects for cap-and-trade funding under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable As Assembly (Cervantes) Communities Program, requires the Strategic Growth Council to seek methods for the inclusion of Introduced Housing & Affordable Housing local entrepreneurs in the implementation of the projects, and workforce training and certification Community and Sustainable of workers hired to work on the projects. Development Communities Program Committee AB 943 Provides that a proposed ordinance submitted by a city to the voters that would curb, delay or deter As Assembly Local (Santiago) growth or development within that city shall be enacted only if approved by at least two-thirds of Introduced Government Land-Use Ordinances the votes cast on the ordinance at the election. Committee AB 964 Creates the California Affordable Clean Vehicle Program to be administered by the California As Assembly (Gomez) Pollution Control Financing Authority to assist low-income or high financial risk individuals in Introduced Transportation California Affordable purchasing low-emission vehicles. Transfers $50 million in cap-and-trade auction proceeds from Committee Clean Vehicle the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the program. Program
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 965 In an action against Caltrans for injury, specifies that the amount of non-economic damages shall As Assembly (Kiley) not exceed $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per occurrence. In an action against Caltrans for Introduced Transportation Caltrans: Civil personal injury, property damage or wrongful death based upon the principles of comparative fault, Committee Liability specifies that the liability of the department for economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Specifies that Caltrans shall be liable only for the amount of economic damages allocated to the department in direct proportion to its percentage of fault, and requires a separate judgment to be rendered against the department for that amount. Requires Caltrans to identify savings achieved through the implementation of the bill on an annual basis. From the identified savings, requires Caltrans to propose an appropriation to be included in the annual Budget Act for expenditure on highway maintenance, operation, rehabilitation, and improvement. AB 980 As part of each project located in a priority area, as defined, requires Caltrans to install a broadband As Assembly (Wood) conduit capable of supporting fiber optic communication cables. Introduced Communications Caltrans: Broadband & Conveyance Committee AB 1060 Authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) to establish As Assembly Local (Burke) an enhanced infrastructure financing district. Introduced Government LA Metro: Enhanced Committee Infrastructure Financing District AB 1103 After slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way, allows a person operating a 4/6/17 Assembly (Obernolte) bicycle approaching a stop sign to cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection Transportation Bicyclists: Rules of without stopping, unless safety considerations require otherwise. Requires a person operating a Committee the Road bicycle to continuously signal an intention to turn right or left during the last 100 feet traveled before the turn, unless the person’s hand is needed to control or operate the bicycle.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1113 Revises and recasts the provisions in current state law governing the State Transit Assistance 3/28/17 Assembly Support (Bloom) Program (STA). Clarifies the definition of STA-eligible transit operator for purposes of allocating Transportation State Transit STA revenue-based funds. Clarifies that only transportation planning agencies can receive direct Committee Assistance Program allocations of STA population-based and revenue-based funds from the Controller’s Office. Requires a transportation planning agency to allocate revenue-based funds only to STA-eligible transit operators within its jurisdiction. Requires the Controller’s Office to compute and publish the revenue-based shares that each STA-eligible transit operator in the state shall receive based on an operator’s qualifying revenues. Defines “qualifying revenues” to mean an STA-eligible transit operator’s fare revenues, including paratransit fare revenues, and other local funds used by the operator in the delivery of public transit service. Excludes the following from the definition of “qualifying revenues”: (1) state and federal operating funds; and (2) all funds used for capital expenditures or depreciation. Specifies that an STA-eligible transit operator’s revenue-based share cannot exceed its total annual operating expenses. Requires the amount of revenue-based funds allocated by the Controller’s Office to a transportation planning agency to be based on the ratio that the total qualifying revenues of all STA-eligible transit operators within the jurisdiction of the transportation planning agency bears to the total qualifying revenues of all STA-eligible transit operators in the state. Requires the amount of revenue-based funds allocated by a transportation planning agency to each STA-eligible transit operators within its jurisdiction to be based on the ratio that an operator’s qualifying revenues bears to the total qualifying revenues of all STA- eligible transit operators within the transportation planning agency’s jurisdiction. AB 1145 Unless otherwise prohibited by law or expressly governed by a contract in force as of January 1, As Assembly Local (Quirk) 2018, requires the state or a local government to reimburse a utility for the reasonable costs Introduced Government Utility Relocation incurred by the utility to relocate its facilities as a result of a construction project financed from any Committee Costs voter-approved bond act of the state or local government, respectively. AB 1218 Eliminates the January 1, 2018, sunset date and makes permanent the following two exemptions As Assembly (Obernolte) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): (1) a bicycle Introduced Natural CEQA: Bicycle transportation plan prepared for an urbanized area for the restriping of streets/highways, bicycle Resources Transportation Plans parking and storage, signal timing to improve street/highway intersection operations, and related Committee and Projects signage for bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles; and (2) a project that consists of restriping streets/highways for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area that is consistent with the area’s bicycle transportation plan.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1233 Creates the Office of the Transportation Inspector General to ensure that Caltrans, the California As Assembly (Cunningham) High-Speed Rail Authority and all other state agencies expending state transportation funds are Introduced Transportation Office of the operating efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with federal and state laws. Requires the Committee Transportation Office of the Transportation Inspector General to review policies, practices and procedures, and to Inspector General conduct audits and investigations of activities involving state transportation funds in consultation with affected state agencies. Requires the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Transportation Inspector General to include all of the following: (1) examining the operating practices of all state agencies expending state transportation funds to identify fraud and waste, opportunities for efficiencies, and opportunities to improve the data used to determine appropriate project resource allocations; (2) identifying best practices in the delivery of transportation projects, and developing policies or recommending proposed legislation to enable state agencies to adopt these practices; (3) providing objective analysis of, and offering solutions to, concerns raised by the public or generated within agencies involving the state’s transportation infrastructure and project delivery methods; (4) conducting, supervising and coordinating audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of all state agencies with state-funded transportation projects; (5) recommending policies promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations of all state agencies with state-funded transportation projects; and (6) ensuring that the California State Transportation Agency and the Legislature are fully and currently informed concerning fraud, or other serious abuses or deficiencies relating to the expenditure of funds, or the administration of programs and operations. Requires the Office of the Transportation Inspector General to provide a summary of its findings, investigations and audits at least annually to the Governor and Legislature. Requires this summary to include significant problems discovered by the Office of the Transportation Inspector General, and whether its recommendations relating to its investigations and audits have been implemented by the affected agencies. AB 1282 By April 1, 2018, requires the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), in consultation 4/4/17 Assembly (Mullin) with the Natural Resources Agency, to establish a Transportation Permitting Task Force consisting Transportation Transportation of representatives from specified state agencies and departments. Requires the task force to Committee Permitting Task Force develop a process for early engagement of all parties in the development of transportation projects to reduce permit processing times, to establish reasonable deadlines for permit approvals, and to provide for greater certainty of permit approval requirements. By December 1, 2018, requires CalSTA to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report of findings based on the efforts of the task force. Requires this report to include a detailed analysis of the following: (1) the existing permitting process for transportation projects in California, including a discussion of the points in the process where delays are most likely to occur; (2) the utilization of existing positions in the various state resources agencies currently supported by transportation funds, including an analysis of the benefits of those positions to the state’s transportation programs relative to their costs; (3) the early engagement process developed by the task force; (4) resource levels needed to implement the task force’s early engagement process; and (5) legislative or regulatory issues, if any, that need to be address to implement the task force’s early engagement process. Sunsets the provisions of the bill on December 1, 2022.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1301 Requires the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies to do all of the following: 3/22/17 Assembly (Fong) (1) evaluate the actions that California, other states and foreign nations are taking to reduce Natural Joint Legislative greenhouse gas emissions, and quantify those reductions from those jurisdictions over the prior Resources Committee on Climate year; (2) evaluate the impact that California’s climate policies have had on the price of Committee Change Policies transportation fuels, electricity and other commodities identified by the joint committee; (3) recommend to the Legislature how to prioritize the allocation of cap-and-trade auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in order to achieve the greatest reductions of greenhouse gas emissions for each dollar spent; and (4) track changes in the cost effectiveness of clean technologies based on the amount of emissions avoided. Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to annually report to the joint committee the greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures identified in the board’s Scoping Plan that are being implemented or considered. AB 1324 Allows a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or regional transportation planning agency 3/20/17 Assembly Local (Gloria) (RTPA) that has sales taxing authority under current law to levy, expand, increase, or extend such a Government Metropolitan Planning tax in a portion of its area of jurisdiction, rather than in its entire area of jurisdiction, provided that Committee Organizations: Sales the tax is approved by the required percentage of voters in that portion of its area of jurisdiction Taxes who vote on the measure. Requires the revenues derived from the tax to be used only within that portion of the MPO’s or RTPA’s area of jurisdiction. AB 1363 Beginning July 1, 2018, eliminates the annual transfer of so-called Non-Article 19 revenues As Assembly (Baker) obtained by Caltrans through the rental or sale of property, the sale of documents, and charges for Introduced Transportation Non-Article 19 other miscellaneous services provided to the public to the General Fund, and, instead, retains these Committee Transportation revenues in the State Highway Account for transportation purposes. Revenues AB 1383 Prior to adopting a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Global Warming As Assembly (Fong) Solutions Act, requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to do all of the following: (1) Introduced Natural Greenhouse Gas work with stakeholders to identify and address technical, market, regulatory, and other challenges Resources Emissions Regulations and barriers in implementing the regulation; (2) provide a forum for public engagement by holding Committee at least three public meetings in geographically diverse locations throughout the state; (3) make a finding that the regulation is technologically and economically feasible, is cost effective, and includes mechanisms to minimize and mitigate potential leakage to other states and countries; and (4) evaluate existing achievements made by incentive-based programs. Within two years of adopting a regulation pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act, requires CARB to both of the following: (1) determine if sufficient progress has been made to overcome any technical, market or regulatory challenges or barriers that were previously identified; and (2) evaluate whether there are any other challenges or barriers that have arisen. Requires CARB to revise the regulation, as needed, based on the findings of this review. AB 1395 By January 1, 2019, requires Caltrans to develop a uniform financial plan to remediate debris to 3/30/17 Assembly (Chu) maintain and preserve the state highway system. Requires the uniform financial plan to include Transportation State Highways: recommendations that allow a municipality to carry out obligations specified in the plan with Committee Debris reimbursement provided by the state.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1421 Requires the Department of Public Health to conduct a study to determine the noise and vibration 3/22/17 Assembly (Dababneh) levels associated with all railroad lines in the vicinity of residential areas or schools. Transportation Railroads: Noise and Committee Vibration AB 1442 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, 3/28/17 Assembly (T. Allen) Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as Transportation High-Speed Rail: specifically provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects Committee Bond Funding related to the Phase I blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent proceeds received from outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available to fund the construction of water capital projects that are part of the State Water Resources Development System, including the construction of desalination facilities, wastewater treatment and recycling facilities, reservoirs, water conveyance infrastructure, and aquifer recharge. Specifies that the provisions of the bill would become effective only upon approval by the voters at the next statewide election. AB 1444 Authorizes the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to conduct a shared 4/5/17 Assembly (Baker) autonomous vehicle demonstration project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that do not have a Transportation LAVTA: driver seated in the driver’s seat, and that are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake pedal or Committee Autonomous Vehicles an accelerator, provided that the following requirements are met: (1) the testing is conducted only Demonstration Project within the city of Dublin; (2) the vehicles may traverse public roads within the area of the demonstration project; and (3) the vehicles operate at speeds of less than 35 miles per hour. Prior to the start of testing of any autonomous vehicles pursuant to this bill, requires LAVTA, or a private entity, or a combination of the two to do both of the following: (1) obtain an instrument of insurance, surety bond or proof of self-insurance in an amount of $5 million; and (2) submit a detailed description of the testing program to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Requires the operator of the autonomous vehicle technology being tested to disclose to an individual participating in the demonstration project what personal information, if any, concerning the individual will be collected by the autonomous vehicle. For the testing of autonomous vehicles within the designated area of the city of Dublin, allows the DMV to require data collection for evaluating the safety of the vehicles. Specifies that the bill does not limit the authority of the DMV to promulgate regulations governing the testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, with or without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle. Specifies that the provisions of the bill shall remain in effect only until January 1 following the operative date of any regulations promulgated by the DMV that allow for the testing of autonomous vehicles without a driver in the vehicle. Requires LAVTA to comply with any regulations regarding the testing of autonomous vehicles promulgated by the DMV.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1454 Re-enacts and makes permanent the statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation 3/21/17 Assembly (Bloom) agencies, as defined, to utilize public-private partnerships for transportation infrastructure projects. Transportation Public-Private Committee Partnerships AB 1470 With respect to a project completed on or after January 1, 2014, that consists of relocating a state As Assembly (Wood) highway in order to bypass a city or business district, provides that the affected city or county shall Introduced Transportation State Highway be eligible to receive funding from an unspecified account for purposes of revitalizing the city or Committee Bypasses business district due to the loss of tourism resulting from the project. AB 1489 Provides that a licensed architect is not responsible for damage caused by construction deviating As Assembly (Brough) from a permitted set of plans, specifications, reports, or documents. Introduced Business & Architects Practice Act Professions Committee AB 1509 Requires the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to maintain its existing commitment of funds 4/6/17 Assembly Local (Baker) for the acquisition, construction or completion of rapid transit facilities. Following the approval of Government BART: Rapid Transit Measure RR at the November 8, 2016, election, prohibits BART from redirecting any existing Committee Facilities funds dedicated for system improvements to cover operating expenses. In any fiscal year in which BART spends Measure RR revenues, requires BART to expend from other revenue sources an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures on acquisition, construction or completion of rapid transit facilities during FY 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016. Authorizes the Controller’s Office to perform audits to ensure BART’s compliance with the provisions of this bill. AB 1523 Authorizes a city or county to use design-build contracting for a local street/road project. 3/28/17 Assembly Local (Obernolte) Authorizes a transit district, county transportation commission, or any other local or regional Government Design-Build agency responsible for the construction of public transit or transportation projects to use design- Committee Contracting build contracting for either a public transit capital project or a local street/road project. AB 1561 Allows two or more local agencies to establish an authority under the state’s joint powers law for 3/20/17 Assembly Local (Quirk-Silva) the purpose of financing port infrastructure. Government Port Infrastructure Committee AB 1613 Authorizes the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) to impose a retail transactions and As Assembly Local (Mullin) use tax that would exceed the 2 percent maximum combined rate for all local option transactions Introduced Government Retail Transactions and use taxes that could be imposed in San Mateo County if both of the following requirements are Committee and Use Tax: met: (1) the tax is set at a rate of no more than 0.5 percent; and (2) the SamTrans Board of SamTrans Directors adopts the ordinance approving the tax before January 1, 2021. AB 1628 Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact a bill to prohibit the use of independent contractors As Assembly Desk (Grayson) on public works projects. Introduced Public Works Projects: Independent Contractors
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1630 Adds the safe wildlife movement across transportation infrastructure to reduce vehicle collisions 3/28/17 Assembly (Bloom) that injure people, disrupt freight delivery and increase the cost of insurance to the list of subject Transportation Wildlife Movement areas that the California Transportation Plan is required to consider. Requires Caltrans to prepare a Committee report describing the status of the department’s progress in locating, assessing and remediating existing barriers to wildlife connectivity. Requires this report to be submitted to the Legislature by October 31 every three years through 2030. Authorizes the Department of Fish & Wildlife to pursue the development of a programmatic environmental review process with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies for remediating barriers to wildlife connectivity that will streamline the permitting process for wildlife crossing projects based on additional funding. For any project using state or federal transportation funds programmed after January 1, 2019, requires Caltrans to ensure that an assessment of existing or proposed barriers to wildlife passage and potential improvements in wildlife connectivity will be completed as part of the project’s design, if the project: (1) affects a wildlife corridor identified in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project; or (2) is otherwise identified by the Department of Fish & Wildlife or Caltrans as a wildlife corridor. If any structural barrier to wildlife passage exists or is proposed, requires Caltrans to include wildlife passage features to mitigate such barriers and improve wildlife connectivity, using the best available science to determine the placement and design of such features. By January 1, 2019, requires Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), in coordination with the Department of Fish & Wildlife, to standardize the collection of data on vehicle collisions with wildlife. By January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Fish & Wildlife to update the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project with new, best available data on wildlife movements. By January 1, 2019, requires the Department of Fish & Wildlife to create a formal avenue for scientific data on wildlife movements gathered by universities, non-profit corporations, public agencies, and independent biologists to be submitted to the Department of Fish & Wildlife, Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position AB 1640 Beginning January 1, 2020, requires a regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) to As Assembly (E. Garcia) allocate a minimum of 25 percent of available State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Introduced Transportation Regional funds to projects or programs that provide direct, meaningful and assured benefits to: (1) low- Committee Transportation income individuals who live in certain identified communities; or (2) riders of public transit Improvement service, of which at least 65 percent of its ridership is composed of low-income riders, that Programs connects low-income residents to critical amenities and services. Through an inclusive and transparent public process, and in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Strategic Growth Council and the Department of Public Health, requires Caltrans to adopt guidelines for the allocation of RTIP funds pursuant to the provisions of this bill no later than June 30, 2018. Requires these guidelines to do all of the following: (1) define and map urban and rural low-income communities in California that are disadvantaged with respect to transportation; (2) identify communities that would benefit from the allocation requirements of the bill; and (3) specify criteria for determining whether investments in transportation projects and programs benefit low-income residents of the communities identified by the department. In identifying communities, requires Caltrans to use the following factors: (1) inadequate access to high quality public transit; (2) lack of sidewalks, crossing facilities or bicycle infrastructure; (3) low rates of automobile ownership; (4) proximity to a freeway, major arterial or goods movement corridor; (5) lack of shelters, benches or pedestrian lighting at public transit stops, employment centers, schools, medical facilities, grocery stores, and other community services; (6) risk of physical or economic displacement; and (7) health and air pollution impacts of the transportation system. Requires congestion management agencies (CMAs) and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) to report to Caltrans information regarding the transportation project and program benefits provided to disadvantaged community residents. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires Caltrans to provide financial support to low-income residents of disadvantaged communities for all of the following purposes: (1) to assist those residents in engaging in the development of the guidelines for the allocation of RTIP funds; (2) to provide those residents with planning support and other technical assistance in identifying their priorities for local projects and programs that meet their needs by reducing their disadvantage with respect to transportation; and (3) to provide those residents with support in developing and implementing a participatory budget process.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a State Assembly Subject Last Status VTA Bills Amended Position ACA 4 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to allow a city or As Assembly Desk (Aguiar-Curry) county to incur indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds, if approved by its electorate Introduced Local Government by a 55 percent majority, to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of Financing: Voter public infrastructure or affordable housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those Approval purposes. Creates an exception to the 1 percent limit for property tax assessments if the revenues are being used to pay bonded indebtedness, approved by a 55 percent majority vote, to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes. Allows a local government to impose, extend or increase a special tax, if approved by its electorate by a 55 percent majority, to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes. Defines “public infrastructure” to include projects that provide any of the following: (1) water or protect water quality; (2) sanitary sewer; (3) treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from stormwater runoff; (4) protection of property from the impacts of sea level rise; (5) parks; (6) open space and recreation facilities; (7) improvements to public transit, and streets/highways; (8) flood control; (9) broadband expansion in underserved areas; or (10) local hospital construction. ACA 5 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to exempt 4/4/17 Passed by the (Frazier) appropriations of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account that is proposed Legislature. To Motor Vehicle Fees to be created pursuant to SB 1 (Beall) from counting toward the state appropriation limit (Gann be placed on the and Taxes: Limit). Requires all revenues derived from the state sales tax on diesel fuel to be deposited into the June 2018 ballot Restrictions on Public Transportation Account (PTA) and used exclusively for mass transportation purposes. Expenditures Prohibits the Legislature from taking any action that would temporarily or permanently divert or appropriate these PTA revenues for non-mass transportation purposes; or that would delay, defer, suspend, or otherwise interrupt the quarterly deposit of these revenues into the PTA. Requires the revenues derived from the new transportation improvement fee that would be imposed by SB 1 to be used solely for transportation purposes. Prohibits transportation improvement fee revenues from being used to pay the principal or interest on state transportation general obligation bonds that were authorized by the voters prior to November 8, 2016. Prohibits the use of these revenues to pay the principal or interest on any state transportation general obligation bond acts approved by the voters after November 8, 2016, unless the bond act expressly authorizes that use. Prohibits the Legislature from borrowing or using transportation improvement fee revenues for purposes other than those authorized in SB 1. ACA 9 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to require the As Assembly Desk (Obernolte) annual Budget Act to be passed by the Legislature and enacted as a statute by midnight of June 15 Introduced Budget Trailer Bills of each year. Requires bills that provide for appropriations relating to, or that are necessary to implement, the Budget Act to be passed by the Legislature and enacted as statutes by midnight on June 30 of each year. If the Budget Act or a budget trailer bill is not enacted by the applicable deadline, prohibits the Budget Act or trailer bill from taking effect with a majority vote, thereby requiring it to be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. If the Budget Act is not enacted by the applicable deadline, prohibits an appropriation for the salary and benefits of members of the Legislature and the Governor from midnight on June 15 until the Budget Act is enacted.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
StateB Senate Bills State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 1 Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to be funded from the following sources: 4/3/17 Governor’s Office Support (Beall) (1) an increase in the gasoline excise tax of 12 cents per gallon, which would be indexed to inflation Transportation every year; (2) 50 percent of the revenues derived from an increase in the diesel excise tax of 20 cents Funding per gallon, which would be indexed to inflation annually; (3) a portion of the revenues derived from a new transportation improvement fee that would be assessed per year based on a vehicle’s market value and indexed to inflation on an annual basis; and (4) a registration surcharge of $100 per year imposed on zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 or later starting with the second year of ownership, which would be indexed to inflation every year. Distributes the revenues deposited into the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account in the following manner: (1) $200 million per year would be allocated to local jurisdictions that have sought and gained voter approval of a local transportation special tax, or that have imposed uniform developer or other fees solely for transportation improvements; (2) $100 million per year would be distributed to the Active Transportation Program; (3) $400 million per year would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges and culverts on the state highway system; (4) $25 million per year would be distributed to support Freeway Service Patrols throughout the state; (5) for FY 2018 through FY 2022, $5 million per year would be allocated to the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies in implementing policies to promote pre-apprenticeship training programs; (6) $25 million per year would be allocated to Caltrans for local and regional planning grants; (7) $5 million and $2 million per year would be distributed to the University of California and the California State University systems, respectively, to conduct transportation research, as well as to fund transportation-related workforce education, training and development activities; (8) 50 percent of the amount remaining would be allocated to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system, and for projects programmed in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP); and (9) 50 percent of the amount remaining would be provided to cities and counties for their local roadway systems. Provides new funding for public transit through the following sources: (1) an increase in the diesel sales tax by a rate of 3.5 percent for the State Transit Assistance Program (STA); (2) an increase in the diesel sales tax by a rate of 0.5 percent for commuter and intercity rail; and (3) $350 million per year (adjusted annually for inflation) from the revenues generated by the new transportation improvement fee to be split 70 percent to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program ($245 million), and 30 percent to STA ($105 million) for public transit state-of-good-repair capital expenditures. Allocates half of the revenues derived from the 20-cent increase in the diesel excise tax to a new Trade Corridor Enhancement Fund for corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state. Creates a new competitive Solutions for Congested Corridors Program to fund projects related to implementing a balanced set of transportation, environmental and community access improvements along highly congested travel corridors pursuant to a corridor plan. Provides $250 million per year from the revenues derived from the new transportation improvement fee for this program.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 2 Enacts the Building Homes and Jobs Act. Beginning January 1, 2018, imposes a fee of $75 to be paid 3/23/17 Senate (Atkins) at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper or notice required or permitted by law to Appropriations Building Homes and be recorded per each single transaction per single parcel of real property. Specifies that this fee shall Committee Jobs Act not exceed $225. Prohibits the fee from being imposed on any real estate instrument, paper or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner- occupier. Deposits the revenues derived from the fee in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for expenditure by the Department of Housing & Community Development. Requires the money in the Trust fund to be appropriated through the annual Budget Act. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires 20 percent of the revenues in the trust fund to be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing, and 10 percent to address affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers and their families. Requires the remainder of the money in the trust fund to be expended for the following purposes: (1) the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-income, very low-income, low- income, and moderate-income households; (2) affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of area median income; (3) matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds; (4) matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund; (5) capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014; (6) emergency shelters, transitional housing and rapid rehousing; (7) accessibility modifications; (8) efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes; (9) homeownership opportunities, including downpayment assistance; (10) grants to local and regional agencies to assist in the development and updating of planning documents and zoning ordinances in order to accelerate housing production; and (11) fiscal incentives as matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, low- income, and moderate-income households. At the time of the Department of Finance’s adjustments to the proposed FY 2019 budget, requires the Department of Housing & Community Development to submit to the Legislature an initial Building Homes and Jobs Investment Strategy. Beginning with FY 2024, and every five years thereafter, requires the department to update this investment strategy and submit it to the Legislature concurrent with the release of the Governor’s proposed budget. Requires the investment strategy to do all of the following: (1) identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes for housing for a five-year period; (2) provide for a geographically balanced distribution of funds, including a 50 percent direct allocation to local governments; (3) emphasize investments that serve households that are at or below 60 percent of area median income; (4) encourage economic development and job creation by helping to meet the housing needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of area median income; (5) identify opportunities for coordination among state departments and agencies; (6) incentivize the use and coordination of non-traditional funding sources; and (7) incentivize innovative approaches that produce cost savings to local and state services by reducing the instability of housing for frequent, high-cost users of hospitals, jails, detoxification facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and emergency shelters. Requires expenditure requests in the Governor’s proposed budget to be consistent with the Building Housing and Jobs Investment Strategy.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 2 Converts the variable gas tax to a fixed rate of 17.3 cents per gallon, which would be indexed to 3/23/17 Senate (Atkins) inflation every year. Requires the repayment of approximately $706 million in outstanding loans owed Appropriations Building Homes and by the General Fund to various transportation accounts over a three-year period ending June 30, 2020. Committee Jobs Act (continued) Distributes these one-time revenues in the following manner: (1) $236 million to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program; (2) $20 million for climate change adaptation planning grants to local and regional agencies; (3) $225 million for the SHOPP; and (4) $225 million to cities and counties for local streets/roads. SB 3 Calls for submitting the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 to the voters at the November 6, 2018, 3/28/17 Senate (Beall) statewide general election, which authorizes the issuance of $3 billion in general obligation bonds to Appropriations Affordable Housing fund various programs related to housing. If approved by the voters, requires the proceeds from the Committee Bond Act of 2018 issuance of the bonds to be allocated in the following manner: (1) $1.5 billion to construct, rehabilitate and preserve permanent and transitional rental housing for persons with incomes of up to 60 percent of the area median income; (2) $200 million to provide assistance to cities, counties, public transit agencies, and developers for the purpose of developing or facilitating higher density uses within close proximity to transit stations that will increase public transit ridership; (3) $300 million for infill incentive grants to assist in constructing and rehabilitating infrastructure that supports high-density affordable and mixed-income housing in locations designated as infill; (4) $100 million for grants to qualifying cities and counties to be used for downpayment assistance to qualifying first-time homebuyers, or low-income and moderate-income buyers purchasing newly constructed homes in a Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) project; (5) $300 million for grants or loans for local public entities, non-profit corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships for constructing or rehabilitating housing for agricultural employees and their families, or for acquiring manufactured housing as part of a program to address and remedy the impacts of current and potential displacement of farmworker families from existing labor camps, mobilehome parks or other housing; (6) $300 million for competitive grants or loans to local housing trust funds that develop, own, lend, or invest in affordable housing to assist in creating pilot programs to demonstrate innovative, cost-saving approaches to building or preserving affordable housing; and (7) $300 million for the CalHome Program to provide direct, forgivable loans to assist development projects involving multiple homeownership units.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 4 Subject to voter approval at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary election, enacts the Goods Movement As Senate (Mendoza) and Clean Trucks Bond Act to authorize the issuance of $600 million in state general obligation bonds Introduced Governance & Goods Movement for the following purposes: (1) $200 million to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for Finance projects and programs eligible for funding from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF); (2) Committee $200 million to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for projects and programs consistent with the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program; and (3) $200 million to CARB for projects and programs to expand the use of zero- and near-zero emission trucks in areas of the state that are designated as severe or extreme nonattainment areas for ozone and particulate matter. Requires revenues apportioned to California from the National Highway Freight Program established by the federal Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to be deposited into the TCIF and allocated by the CTC for projects pursuant to the statutes governing the TCIF. In prioritizing projects for TCIF funding, requires the CTC to consult the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan released in July 2016 pursuant to a gubernatorial executive order. Requires projects eligible for TCIF funding to further the state’s economic, environmental and public health objectives and goals for freight policy. In evaluating the program of projects to be funded from the TCIF, requires the CTC to evaluate the total potential economic and non-economic benefits of the program of projects to California’s economy, environment and public health. Requires the CTC to allocate the revenues apportioned to California from the formula-based National Highway Freight Program in the following manner: (1) $150 million dedicated exclusively to fund improvements to California’s existing or planned land ports of entry on the border with Mexico; (2) $70 million dedicated exclusively to fund projects for the elimination, alteration or improvement of hazardous railroad-highway grade crossings; and (3) $360 million for projects nominated by regional transportation agencies and other public entities, in consultation with Caltrans, consistent with the corridor-based programming targets contained in the TCIF Guidelines. Requires the CTC to proportionately adjust these amounts if the funding received by California from the National Highway Freight Program is less than or greater than $580 million. Requires the CTC to amend the current TCIF Guidelines to allocate funding in a manner that: (1) addresses the state’s most urgent needs; (2) balances the demands of various land ports of entry, seaports and airports; (3) provides reasonable geographic balance between the state’s regions; (4) places an emphasis on projects that improve trade corridor mobility and safety, while reducing emissions of diesel particulates, greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and reducing other negative community impacts; and (5) makes a significant contribution to the state’s economy. In adopting amended guidelines, and in developing and adopting the program of projects for TCIF funding, requires the CTC to do all of the following: (1) accept nominations for projects to be included in the program of projects from regional and local transportation agencies, and from Caltrans; (2) recognize the key role of the state in project identification and support integrating statewide goods movement priorities into the corridor approach; and (3) give the highest priority for funding allocations to projects jointly nominated by Caltrans and a regional or other public agency.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 19 Among other things, makes legislative findings and declarations relative to the administration working 3/14/17 Senate (Hill) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to develop a reorganization plan to transfer Appropriations California Public those duties and responsibilities of the commission over transportation-related entities that would be Committee Utilities better performed by departments within the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). By Commission: February 1 of each year, requires CalSTA to report to the Governor and the relevant committees of the Duties, Legislature statistical information regarding application, permit and enforcement activities undertaken Responsibilities and by the agency in carrying out the duties and responsibilities transferred to the agency from the CPUC. Governance SB 20 Requires a passenger in a bus equipped with seatbelts to be properly restrained by a belt. Specifies that 4/6/17 Senate (Hill) a violation of this seatbelt requirement is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $20 for the Appropriations Buses: Seatbelts first offense, and a fine of not more than $50 for each subsequent offense. Requires the bus operator to Committee maintain the seatbelts in good working order for the use of passengers of the vehicle. Before the departure of a bus carrying passengers in a vehicle equipped with seatbelts, requires the driver to inform passengers of the requirement to wear the belt under California law and about the penalties for violating this requirement. If a bus is equipped with a driver seatbelt, requires the bus driver to be properly restrained by the belt. Specifies that a violation of this requirement is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $20 for the first offense, and a fine of not more than $50 for each subsequent offense. Specifies that the aforementioned provisions of the bill do not apply to school buses. Requires a charter bus company to ensure that a driver of a vehicle designed to carry 39 or more passengers does both of the following: (1) instructs or plays a video for all passenger regarding the safety equipment and emergency exists on the vehicle prior to the beginning of any trip; and (2) provides each passenger with written or video instructions that include, at a minimum, a demonstration of the location and operation of all exits, the requirement to wear a seatbelt, if available, and the penalties for violating the seatbelt requirement.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 21 By July 1, 2018, requires a public agency to submit to its governing body for adoption by resolution or 3/23/17 Senate Judiciary (Hill) ordinance on the regular, non-consent calendar a Surveillance Use Policy pertaining to any surveillance Committee Surveillance technologies already in use by that agency. Requires the policy to include, in separate sections specific Technologies to each unique type of surveillance technology, a description of each surveillance technology used by the public agency Requires each section covering a separate technology to include, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) authorized purposes for using the surveillance technology; (2) types of data that can be and is collected by the surveillance technology; (3) a description of the job title or other designation of employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use the surveillance technology or to access the data collected; (4) the title of the official custodian or owner of the surveillance technology; (5) a description of how the surveillance technology will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with any applicable privacy laws; (6) the length of time information collected by the surveillance technology will be retained, and a process to determine if and when to destroy the retained information; (7) purposes of, processes for and restrictions on the sale, sharing or transfer of information to other persons; and (8) how collected information can be accessed by members of the public, including criminal defendants. After July 1, 2018, specifies that if a public agency intends to acquire a new type of surveillance technology after the adoption of the Surveillance Use Policy, requires the agency to submit an amendment to the policy to include the technology as a new section of the policy to its governing body for approval. At a time interval agreed to by the public agency and its governing body, requires an agency that uses surveillance technologies and has an approved Surveillance Use Policy to submit to its governing body a written Surveillance Technology Use Report. Requires the report to include, at a minimum, all of the following: (1) the total costs for each surveillance technology, including personnel costs; (2) a description of how many times each type of technology was used in the preceding year, and how many times it helped apprehend suspects or close a criminal case; (3) a description of the type of data collected by each surveillance technology, including whether each technology captured images, sound or other data; (4) the number of times and the purposes surveillance technology was borrowed from or lent to another agency, including technologies used under exigent circumstances; (5) the number and classification of the agency employees trained and authorized to use each type of surveillance technology, along with a description of the training provided and how often it was provided; and (6) disclosure of whether any surveillance technology was used in a manner out of compliance with the agency’s Surveillance Use Policy; whether data collected through the use of the technology was inappropriately disclosed, released or in any other way revealed for a non-approved reason; and the steps the agency took to correct the error.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 32 Creates the Citizens’ Pension Oversight Committee to serve in an advisory role to the Teachers’ 3/2/17 Senate Public (Moorlach) Retirement Board and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Employment & Public Employees’ System (CalPERS). Requires the oversight committee to annually review the actual pension costs and Retirement Pension Reform obligations of CalPERS and the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS), and to report them to the Committee public. Prohibits a public retirement board from deeming incentive pay, educational pay, premium pay, special assignment pay, or holiday pay to be pensionable compensation. Requires the Board of Administration of CalPERS to reduce the unfunded liability of CalPERS to the 1980 level to be achieved by 2030, with the goal of fully funding the system. In any year in which the unfunded actuarial liability of CalPERS is greater than zero, requires the Board of Administration to increase the employer contribution rate otherwise provided by law for the state, contracting agencies and school employers by 10 percent. By January 1, 2019, requires the Board of Administration of CalPERS to develop and submit to the Legislature for approval a hybrid retirement plan consisting of the following: (1) a defined benefit component that utilizes low-risk investments; and (2) a defined contribution component under which an employee’s contributions will be matched by employer contributions up to a certain percent. Requires a member who is first employed by the state, a contracting agency or a school employer, and becomes a member of CalPERS on or after the approval of the hybrid plan by the Legislature to participate in the hybrid plan. For an individual who becomes a member of any public retirement system for the first time on or after January 1, 2018, and who was not a member of any other public retirement system prior to that date, requires the final compensation used to determine the member’s retirement benefits to be the highest annual pensionable compensation earned by the member during a period of at least 60 consecutive months, or at least five consecutive school years if applicable. Prohibits a public retirement system from making a cost-of-living adjustment to any retirement benefit to, or on behalf of, a person retired under the system, or to any survivor or beneficiary of a member or person retired under the system for any year, beginning on or after January 1, 2018, in which CalPERS or STRS is not fully funded. SB 49 Prohibits a state or local agency from amending or revising its rules and regulations to be less stringent 2/22/17 Senate (de Leon) than the baseline federal standards for the following federal laws: (1) Clean Air Act; (2) Endangered Environmental California Species Act; (3) Safe Drinking Water Act; (4) Water Pollution Control Act; and (5) any other federal Quality Environmental, law relating to environmental protection, natural resources or public health. Defines “baseline federal Committee Public Health and standards” to mean the authorizations, policies, objectives, rules, requirements, and standards contained Workers Defense in the aforementioned federal laws, or regulations implementing those laws in existence as of January 1, Act of 2017 2016, or January 1, 2017, whichever is more stringent. Prohibits a state agency from amending or revising its rules and regulations in a manner that is less stringent in its protection of workers’ rights or worker safety than standards in existence as of January 1, 2016, established pursuant to the following federal laws: (1) Fair Labor Standards Act; (2) Occupational Safety and Health Act; (3) Mine Safety and Health Act; and (4) any other federal statutes relating to worker rights and protections.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 50 Establishes a state policy to discourage conveyances that transfer ownership of federal public lands in 3/20/17 Senate (B. Allen) California from the federal government. Specifies that such conveyances are void unless the State Appropriations Federal Public Lands Commission was provided with the right of first refusal to the conveyance, or the right to arrange Committee Lands: Conveyances for the transfer of property to another entity. Authorizes the commission to seek declaratory and injunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction to contest conveyances made to any entity unless the requirements of this bill are met. Requires the commission, the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Department of Fish & Wildlife to enter into a memorandum of understanding that establishes a state policy that all three agencies would undertake all feasible efforts to protect against any future unauthorized conveyances of, or any changes in, federal public land designation. Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply to the conveyance of federal public lands pursuant to a conservation plan. SB 51 Prohibits professional licensing entities within state government from taking disciplinary action, 3/28/17 Senate Judiciary (Jackson) including disbarment, suspension, loss of credential, registration, or other professional privilege, against Committee Professional a public employee, or employee of a government contractor, subcontractor or grantee in connection Licenses: with actions taken by that person to: (1) report improper governmental action; or (2) communicate the Environmental results of, or information about, scientific or technical research in a scientific or public forum, or with Sciences and the media. Specifies that this prohibition includes persons working in the environmental sciences and Climate Change climate-change-related fields. Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to ensure that all scientific information and other data otherwise in the public domain is protected against censorship or destruction by the federal government. SB 80 Requires the lead agency for a project to post notices related to compliance with the California 2/14/17 Senate (Wieckowski) Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on its Internet Web site. Requires the lead agency to offer to Appropriations CEQA: Notices provide such notices by email to any person requesting them. Requires a county clerk to post notices Committee regarding an environmental impact report or a negative declaration on the county’s Internet Web site. If the lead agency determines that a project falls within a class of projects that is not subject to CEQA pursuant to guidelines developed by the Office of Planning & Research (OPR), and the agency approves or determines to carry out the project, requires the agency to file a notice of determination with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. SB 145 Deletes provisions in current law requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to notify the Legislature As Senate (Hill) of the receipt of an application from a manufacturer seeking approval to operate an autonomous vehicle Introduced Transportation & Autonomous on public roads. Housing Vehicles Committee
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 150 Requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to update the greenhouse gas emissions reduction 4/6/17 Senate (Allen) targets for a metropolitan planning organization’s regional transportation plan (RTP) in a manner that is Environmental Regional consistent with the latest available climate science and an assessment of the portion of the state’s Quality Transportation overall climate targets that will need to be met by reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Requires a Committee Plans: Sustainable metropolitan planning organization’s sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy Communities to include an appendix that outlines the region’s transportation planning and programming activities, Strategy with those activities based on criteria developed to prioritize transportation projects for programming that reduce vehicle miles traveled and maximize co-benefits, including public health, social equity and conservation. Requires projects to be listed in this appendix in the order of their ability to achieve those objectives. Specifies that the criteria for the appendix should include: (1) a reduction in per capita carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light duty trucks based on assigned regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; (2) a reduction in vehicle miles traveled of 15 percent by cars and light duty trucks by 2050; (3) an increase in the average daily time spent walking or bicycling for transportation purposes; and (4) a decrease in the share of low-income and lower middle-income residents’ household income consumed by transportation and housing. Beginning January 1, 2018, requires CARB to monitor each metropolitan planning organization’s sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy, and to prepare a progress report every four years for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Requires such monitoring by CARB to include an assessment of whether the metropolitan planning organization is on track to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by 15 percent by 2050, and to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets established by CARB. Requires CARB to complete its initial assessment by March 1, 2018, and to complete future assessments every four years thereafter. SB 185 In any case involving an infraction under the Vehicle Code filed with the court, requires the court to 3/20/17 Senate (Hertzberg) determine whether the defendant is indigent for purposes of establishing the amount of any associated Transportation & Vehicle Code fine, fee, assessment, or other financial penalties that the person can afford to pay. If a defendant is Housing Violations: Indigent determined to be indigent, requires the court to reduce the base fine, penalty assessments, any state or Committee Defendants local fees, and any civil assessments by 80 percent on all charges pending against the defendant. Requires the court to provide alternatives to immediate payment of a sentence for a Vehicle Code infraction, including a payment plan option. Requires the court to determine the amount that a defendant can afford to pay per month by using a payment calculator developed by the Judicial Council. For persons not found to be indigent, requires that the monthly payment not exceed 5 percent of the defendant’s family monthly income, excluding deductions for essential living expenses. For defendants found to be indigent, requires the monthly payments to be $0 until the person’s financial circumstances change, and requires the remaining amount owed to be discharged after 48 months in the interest of justice.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 224 In determining the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency decides whether a project has a 4/5/17 Senate (Jackson) significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental CEQA: Baseline prohibits the lead agency from considering modifications to the environment at the project site caused Quality Physical Conditions by either of the following: (1) action undertaken without an environmental review for emergency Committee repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service, or specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency; or (2) action that is unpermitted or illegal at the time the action was undertaken. SB 251 Authorizes the County of Merced to conduct a pilot project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that As Senate (Cannella) do not have a driver seated in the driver’s seat, and that are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake Introduced Transportation & Merced County: pedal or an accelerator, provided that the testing is conducted only at the Castle Commerce Center, Housing Autonomous inclusive of public roads within the center. Prior to the start of testing of any autonomous vehicles Committee Vehicles Pilot pursuant to this bill, requires Merced County, or a private entity, or a combination of the two to do both Project of the following: (1) obtain an instrument of insurance, surety bond or proof of self-insurance in an amount of $5 million; and (2) submit a detailed description of the testing program to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Requires the operator of the autonomous vehicle technology being tested to disclose to an individual participating in the pilot project what personal information, if any, concerning the individual will be collected by the autonomous vehicle. For the testing of autonomous vehicles within the Castle Commerce Center, allows the DMV to require data collection for evaluating the safety of the vehicles. Specifies that the bill does not limit the authority of the DMV to promulgate regulations governing the testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, with or without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle. Specifies that the provisions of the bill shall remain in effect only until 180 days after the operative date of any regulations promulgated by the DMV that allow for the testing of autonomous vehicles without a driver in the vehicle. Requires any testing of autonomous vehicles conducted by Merced County to conform to those regulations.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 263 Requires the Strategic Growth Council to establish no less than 10 regional climate assistance centers, 3/21/17 Senate Natural (Leyva) as follows: (1) one center in Northern California by January 1, 2020; (2) one center in Southern Resources & Regional Climate California by January 1, 2020; (3) one center in the San Joaquin Valley by January 1, 2020; and (4) Water Committee Assistance Centers the remaining centers to be equitably distributed across urban and rural areas of the state by January 1, 2023. Requires the regional centers to do all of the following: (1) provide technical assistance to target user groups in applying for money for programs funded with cap-and-trade action proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the Active Transportation Program, and programs under the California Farmland Conservancy Program Act; (2) provide technical assistance and training to target user groups in project management and implementation for the projects funded under the aforementioned programs; and (3) seek scientific and technical support from federal, state and local sources of expertise in accomplishing the goals of the center, as needed. In addition, requires the centers to work with local organizations to formulate policy ideas that accomplish any of the following: (1) increase community and private-sector engagement in addressing climate change; (2) increase equitable investment in disadvantaged communities; (3) maximize the co-benefits of climate-related projects; (4) expand workforce development training; and (5) identify strategies that prevent the displacement of persons and families of low or moderate income. Requires the Strategic Growth Council to do all of the following: (1) conduct outreach and provide direct technical assistance to the regional centers and the public in order to identify relevant state funding programs, develop eligible activities and prepare grant applications; (2) promote the effective integration of state climate investment programs for low-income customers and disadvantaged communities; (3) identify potential matching funds from federal, state and local agencies; and (4) convene an annual statewide summit for regional center staff and grant recipients. SB 285 Prohibits a public employer from deterring or discouraging employees from becoming or remaining 3/14/17 Senate Public (Atkins) members of an employee organization. Grants the Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction Employment & Public Employers: over violations of this prohibition. Retirement Union Organizing Committee SB 337 Requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Franchise Tax Board, to estimate, on an As Senate (Bates) annual basis, the amount of revenues to be received from state taxes in the next fiscal year as a Introduced Governance & Repatriation consequence of the enactment of a federal corporate repatriation statute under which the foreign Finance Infrastructure Fund earnings of U.S.-based corporations that are currently invested abroad are moved to the United States. Committee After reservation of the appropriate amounts required for K-14 education pursuant to Proposition 98 and for the Budget Stabilization Account, specifies that the remaining repatriation revenues are to be transferred to a newly created Repatriation Infrastructure Fund. Requires the revenues in this fund to be continuously appropriated to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and allocated as follows: (1) 65 percent for trade corridor projects; (2) 30 percent to cities and counties for local streets/roads; and (3) 5 percent to the Public Transportation Account (PTA). Specifies that the provisions of the bill would become inoperative on July 1, 2025.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 406 Authorizes a blood transport vehicle to use a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane without the required 3/23/17 Senate (Leyva) number of occupants, if the vehicle is displaying a distinctive decal, label or other identifier issued by Transportation & Blood Transport the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that clearly distinguishes it from other vehicles. Requires a Housing Vehicles blood transport vehicle displaying such decal, label or other identifier to be granted toll-free or reduced- Committee rate passage in a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, unless prohibited by federal law. Defines a “blood transport vehicle” to mean a vehicle that transports blood between collection points and hospitals or storage centers. SB 414 Specifies that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to the Safe, Reliable As Senate (Vidak) High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition 1A), except as specifically Introduced Transportation & High-Speed Rail: provided with respect to an existing appropriation for early improvement projects related to the Phase I Housing Bond Funding blended system. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the unspent proceeds received from Committee outstanding bonds issued and sold for high-speed rail purposes prior to the effective date of the provisions of this bill to be redirected to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of those outstanding bonds. Allows the remaining unissued bonds, as of the effective date of the provisions of this bill, that were authorized for high-speed rail purposes to be issued and sold. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, requires the net proceeds from the sale of these remaining unissued bonds to be made available as follows: (1) 50 percent to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for allocation to repair and new construction projects on state highways and freeways; and (2) 50 percent to the Controller’s Office for apportionment to cities and counties for transportation projects or other infrastructure improvements. Makes no changes to the authorization under Proposition 1A for the issuance of $950 million in bonds for rail purposes other than high-speed rail. Specifies that the provisions of the bill would become effective only upon approval by the voters at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary election. SB 415 For real property acquired by the state on or after January 1, 2018, for high-speed rail purposes, As Senate (Vidak) requires the California High-Speed Rail Authority to make a good faith effort to sell or exchange such Introduced Transportation & High-Speed Rail: property within three years from the date of acquisition if the authority has not begun construction on Housing Real Property the property within that period of time. For real property acquired by the state before January 1, 2018, Committee for high-speed rail purposes, requires the California High-Speed Rail Authority to make a good faith effort to sell or exchange such property by January 1, 2021, if the authority has not begun construction on the property by then. If the California High-Speed Rail Authority leased, prior to January 1, 2018, real property acquired by the state for high-speed rail purposes, requires the authority to make a good faith effort to sell or exchange such property within three years from the date of the expiration of the lease, if the authority has not begun construction on the property within that period of time. SB 422 Re-enacts and makes permanent the statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation 3/20/17 Senate Support (Wilk) agencies, including the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), to utilize public-private Transportation & Public-Private partnerships for transportation infrastructure projects. Housing Partnerships Committee
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 450 Prior to authorizing a bond issuance, requires the governing body of a public entity to obtain and 3/22/17 Senate (Hertzberg) disclose all of the following information in a meeting open to the public: (1) the annual percentage rate Governance & Public Notice of of the bond, which means the cost of interest expressed as a yearly rate; (2) the finance charge of the Finance Bond Issuances bond, which means the sum of all charges payable by the borrower, including interest and transaction Committee costs, expressed in dollar terms; (3) the amount financed by the bond, which means the amount of credit provided by the lender; (4) the total payment amount, which means the sum total of all payments the borrower will have made by the time the full balance has been paid, including all fees and finance charges. Requires this information to be obtained as follows: (1) as a good faith estimate from an underwriter, financial adviser or private lender; or (2) from a third-party borrower, if the public body issuing the bonds is a conduit financing provider. SB 477 At any time after an interagency transfer agreement for an intercity rail corridor between Caltrans and a 3/27/17 Senate (Cannella) joint powers board has been executed, allows the agreement to be amended to extend the affected rail Transportation & Intercity Rail corridor to provide intercity rail service beyond the defined boundaries of the corridor. Requires a Housing Corridors: proposed extension to be recommended and justified in the business plan for the intercity rail corridor Committee Extensions by the joint powers board, and to be approved by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). In addition, requires the joint powers board to make a determination that the proposed extension would not jeopardize or come at the expense of other existing intercity rail services. SB 584 Restates the goals of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program to achieve a target of As Senate Rules (de Leon) generating 50 percent of total retail sales of electricity in the state from eligible renewable energy Introduced Committee California resources by December 31, 2025, and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. Renewables Portfolio Standard Program SB 594 By January 1, 2019, requires Caltrans to draft a plan to establish and meet all of the following goals: 4/6/17 Senate (Beall) (1) to achieve at least an aggregate 25 percent participation rate by small businesses and disadvantaged Transportation & Caltrans: Contracts business enterprises in federally funded projects; (2) to achieve at least an aggregate 30 percent Housing participation rate by small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises in state-funded projects; Committee and (3) to achieve at least an 8 percent participation rate by disabled veteran business enterprises in state-funded projects. SB 595 By January 1, 2019, requires Caltrans to develop and present to the Legislature a plan to identify 4/8/17 Senate (Beall) redundant positions at the department and how savings from eliminating those positions will be put into Transportation & Caltrans: Redundant state-owned roadway maintenance and upkeep. Housing Positions Committee SB 603 Prohibits the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) from entering into an agreement that would limit As Senate Public (Glazer) its ability to prepare for, or operate during, a work stoppage. Introduced Employment & BART: Work Retirement Stoppages Committee
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 604 Prohibits the employees of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) from engaging in a strike or As Senate Public (Glazer) work stoppage if the BART Board of Directors maintains all provisions of an expired contract, Introduced Employment & BART: Prohibition including compensation and benefit provisions, and an employee or union has agreed to a provision Retirement of Strikes by prohibiting strikes in the expired or previous written labor contract. Provides that an employee whom Committee Employees BART finds willfully engaged in a strike or work stoppage in violation of the provisions of this bill is subject to dismissal if that finding is sustained upon conclusion of the appropriate proceedings necessary for the imposition of a disciplinary action on the employee. SB 614 For those public transit agencies that adopt and enforce an ordinance to impose administrative penalties 4/5/17 Senate Support (Hertzberg) for fare evasion and certain passenger misconduct violations, requires the revenues from the Transportation & Passenger administrative fines to be deposited with the transit agency that issued the citation, rather than in the Housing Misconduct general fund of the county in which the citation is administered. Committee Violations and Fare Evasion: Administrative Fines SB 640 States that the intent of the bill is to make the following three broad changes to California’s tax code: As Senate (Hertzberg) (1) provide tax relief to middle- and low-income Californians, while simplifying the personal income Introduced Governance & Retail Sales Tax on tax, maintaining progressivity and mitigating the reliance on top income earners; (2) broaden the tax Finance Services base by imposing a modest sales tax on services; and (3) enhance the state’s business climate, and Committee incentivize entrepreneurship and business creation by lowering the corporate income tax on small businesses, exempting very small business from the sales tax on services, and significantly reducing the minimum franchise tax. Creates the Retail Sales Tax on Services Fund in the State Treasury. States that the intent is to appropriates money in the fund to: (1) provide tax relief to middle- and low-income Californians to offset the effect of the sales tax on services; (2) assist in securing greater stability for California’s infrastructure, workforce, and health care and education systems, including higher education; and (3) enhance California’s business climate, and incentivize and protect small businesses. SB 680 Allows the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to acquire property for transit-oriented joint As Senate (Wieckowski) development that is located within a half mile of a transit facility, rather than within a quarter mile, as is Introduced Transportation & BART: Transit- the case under current law. Housing Oriented Committee Development
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SB 760 Establishes a Division of Active Transportation within Caltrans to be responsible for: (1) developing As Senate (Wiener) projects and programs that increase bicycle and pedestrian safety and trips statewide; and (2) reviewing Introduced Transportation & Active all state highway capital improvement projects for inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where Housing Transportation and feasible. Requires the California State Transportation Agency to assign an undersecretary to give Committee Complete Streets attention to active transportation matters to guide progress toward meeting Caltrans’ active transportation goals and objectives. Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to give high priority to increasing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and implementing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. By January 1, 2018, requires Caltrans to update its Highway Design Manual to incorporate the complete streets design concept. Requires the Assets Management Plan currently prepared by Caltrans to prescribe a process for community input and complete streets implementation to prioritize safety and accessibility for bicyclists, pedestrians and public transit users on all State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, where applicable. In connection with the Assets Management Plan, requires the CTC to adopt performance measures that include: (1) conditions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; (2) accessibility and safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and public transit users; and (3) vehicle miles traveled on the state highway system. Adds capital improvements related to accessibility for bicyclists, pedestrians and public transit users of state highways and bridges to the list of projects that are eligible for SHOPP funding. Requires Caltrans to specify the cost of bicycle and pedestrian facilities for each project programmed in the SHOPP. When undertaking any capital improvement project on a state highway or a local street crossing a state highway that is funded through the SHOPP, requires Caltrans, by January 1, 2020, to include new bicycle and pedestrian facilities or improvements to existing facilities as part of the project, consistent with specified requirements. Requires Caltrans to establish a project development team for each SHOPP project, which shall include representatives from the local transportation agency, the local bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, community-based organizations, residents of low-income disadvantaged communities, and other local stakeholders impacted by the project. Requires the project development team to provide input to Caltrans on identifying bicycle and pedestrian facility and public transit access needs related to the project. Requires Caltrans to use 3 percent of SHOPP funds from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, if that account is created through legislation, for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Makes accessibility improvements for all users of the transportation system that improve the efficiency of moving people within existing roadways, reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote public health the highest priority for State Highway Account funding. Requires safety improvements funded from the State Highway Account to prioritize reducing fatalities and severe injuries for vulnerable road users, and prohibits these projects from increasing vehicle miles traveled. SB 768 Re-enacts and makes permanent the statutory authority for Caltrans and regional transportation 3/27/17 Senate (Allen) agencies, as defined, to utilize public-private partnerships for transportation infrastructure projects. Transportation & Public-Private Housing Partnerships Committee
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
12.a
State Senate Bills Subject Last Status VTA Amended Position SCA 2 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to exempt 3/30/17 Senate Floor (Newman) appropriations of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account that is proposed to Motor Vehicle Fees be created pursuant to SB 1 (Beall) from counting toward the state appropriation limit (Gann Limit). and Taxes: Requires all revenues derived from the state sales tax on diesel fuel to be deposited into the Public Restrictions on Transportation Account (PTA) and used exclusively for mass transportation purposes. Prohibits the Expenditures Legislature from taking any action that would temporarily or permanently divert or appropriate these PTA revenues for non-mass transportation purposes; or that would delay, defer, suspend, or otherwise interrupt the quarterly deposit of these revenues into the PTA. Requires the revenues derived from the new transportation improvement fee that would be imposed by SB 1 to be used solely for transportation purposes. Prohibits transportation improvement fee revenues from being used to pay the principal or interest on state transportation general obligation bonds that were authorized by the voters prior to November 8, 2016. Prohibits the use of these revenues to pay the principal or interest on any state transportation general obligation bond acts approved by the voters after November 8, 2016, unless the bond act expressly authorizes that use. Prohibits the Legislature from borrowing or using transportation improvement fee revenues for purposes other than those authorized in SB 1. SCA 6 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to allow a local 3/29/17 Senate Support (Wiener) government to impose, extend or increase a special tax in order to provide funding for transportation Governance & Local Transportation purposes, if approved by a 55 percent majority vote. Specifies that a tax provides funding for Finance Special Taxes transportation purposes if 100 percent of the net revenues from the tax, after collection and Committee administrative expenses, is dedicated to transportation programs and projects. SCA 10 Calls for placing before the voters an amendment to the California Constitution to prohibit a As Senate Public (Moorlach) government employer from providing its employees any retirement benefit increase until that increase Introduced Employment & Public Employee is approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate within the employer’s jurisdiction and that vote is Retirement Retirement Benefits certified. Defines “retirement benefit” to mean any post-employment benefit, including a benefit Committee provided through a defined benefit pension plan, defined contribution plan, retiree health care plan, or any form of deferred compensation offered by a government employer. Defines ‘benefit increase” to mean any change that increases the value of an employee’s retirement benefit, including increasing a benefit formula or the rate of cost-of-living adjustments, expanding the categories of pay included in pension calculations, reducing a vesting period, lowering the eligible retirement age, or otherwise providing a new economic advantage for the employee.
2017-2018 Legislative Update Matrix
REVISED AF AGENDA ITEM #13 CMPP Item #10 SSTPO Item #8
Date: April 14, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20&21, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: Next Network Final Plan
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors adopt the Final VTA Transit Service Plan.
BACKGROUND:
VTA updates its transit service plan every two years, typically making small adjustments based on rider input and performance data. For the FY18-19 transit service plan, VTA is completely redesigning its transit network in order to connect to BART at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations, increase overall ridership and improve cost-effectiveness. Due to the enormity of the redesign, VTA initiated a community-based planning process, known as Next Network, in early 2016.
Overview of Next Network Process
The Next Network process framed the redesign to balance the competing goals of ridership and coverage that transit agencies are asked to achieve. A five-month long community engagement process in the summer of 2016 yielded over 5,000 points of input and a general desire by the public for VTA to place more emphasis on the ridership goal and less emphasis on the coverage goal for the FY18-19 transit service plan.
In November 2016, the Board of Directors affirmed the community’s input and directed staff to develop a service plan that increased the portion of operating funds spent on ridership-purposed services from 70 to 85 percent and decreased coverage-purposed spending from 30 to 15 percent. At the January 2017 Board Meeting, the Board approved the release of an 85/15 Draft Transit
Service Plan. VTA staff then undertook a new round of extensive community engagement in January and February of 2017 to receive input from the community and stakeholders.
After reviewing over 3,000 public comments on the Draft Transit Service Plan, staff developed a Final Transit Service Plan that made 34 changes to the Draft Transit Service Plan, including retaining service to some areas where discontinuances had been proposed such as Almaden Valley, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga and Campbell, among others. The Final Transit Service Plan employs an 83/17 ridership/coverage balance. What follows is a more in-depth discussion of the process staff engaged in to arrive at the 83/17 recommendation.
Next Network Foundation
To assist with the Next Network process, VTA hired Jarrett Walker and Associates (JWA), an internationally-respected transit network design firm, to lead a community conversation about how to improve Santa Clara County’s transit system. In February of 2016, JWA produced an independent assessment of VTA’s transit service called the Transit Choices Report (which can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org). The Transit Choices Report recommended changes to VTA’s network design philosophy, service classes, branding and fare structure. The Transit Choices Report outlined a strategy for increasing ridership: operating frequent, all-day transit service in areas that follow patterns of density, walkability, linearity and proximity. The Transit Choices Report also noted that increasing transit ridership requires multi-agency collaboration as the two largest drivers of ridership-land use and the design of the street network-are within the authority of municipal governments.
In June 2016, JWA produced a Transit Alternatives Report (which can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org) that framed the design of VTA’s transit network in terms of the two goals that transit agencies are asked to achieve: ridership and coverage. The ridership goal compels transit agencies to think like a business and invest service hours in places that have high transit demand and transit-supportive characteristics like density and walkability. Ridership-oriented networks tend to have fewer routes, but many that are frequent while coverage-oriented networks have many routes, but few that are frequent. The coverage goal compels transit agencies to think like a government service and locate transit routes in as many places as possible to maximize access to public transit. While increasing ridership and coverage are both important goals, they compete for the same funding. Doing more of one means doing less of the other and transit agencies must decide how much of their funding should be spent toward each.
VTA currently spends 70 percent of its transit operating funding on ridership-purposed routes and 30 percent on coverage-purposed routes (as shown in Attachment A). Given the goal of increasing ridership, the Transit Alternatives Report asked if VTA should change its ridership/coverage balance and, if so, by how much? To assist with this community conversation, the Transit Alternatives Report featured three network concepts that employed different ridership/coverage balances, 70/30, 80/20 and 90/10. Each showed the tradeoff between increased frequency and decreased access. All three concepts were designed in a budget-neutral context, where each would cost the same for VTA to operate.
Page 2 of 14
Phase I Outreach and Board Direction
In the summer of 2016, VTA undertook a community engagement effort consisting of 12 community meetings, four four-hour community leader workshops, surveys and online outreach. This effort asked the public to weigh in on the three network concepts and cast a vote for their preferred ridership/coverage balance along a spectrum that ranged from 70/30 to 90/10. Over 2,000 votes were cast yielding an 80/20 average. At the community leader workshops, the average result of the ridership/coverage balance survey was 85/15.
VTA also asked if the public would welcome a more-ridership oriented network if it meant walking farther to access faster or more frequent transit and if making transfers between more frequent buses and/or trains in order to arrive at one’s destination sooner would be preferred over making one-seat trips. Though some members of the public preferred shorter walks and one-seat trips, the majority favored walking farther and making transfers.
The community leader workshop attendees included elected officials, neighborhood and civic leaders, and representatives of community groups whose constituents rely on transit to get around. Due to these leaders’ closeness to the topic of public transit, additional consideration was given to their input, resulting in a staff recommendation for an 85/15 ridership/coverage balance for the Draft Transit Service Plan.
At their November 18, 2016 Board Workshop, VTA’s Board of Directors endorsed the staff recommendation. A Draft Transit Service Plan that employed an 85/15 ridership/coverage balance was released for public review at the January 5, 2017 Board of Directors Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Draft Transit Service Plan
The Draft Transit Service Plan proposed several fundamental changes to the design of VTA’s transit network, including the following:
Reallocating transit service from low-ridership areas to high-ridership areas
Increasing frequency
Increasing Light Rail Service
More Rapid Routes
Increasing midday and weekend service levels and expanding hours of service
Transitioning toward a grid network
Stronger connections to regional transportation
Expanding potential rider base, improving service for current riders
Page 3 of 14
The December 22, 2016 memorandum presented to the Board of Directors on January 5, 2017 includes a detailed discussion of these features and the Draft Transit Service Plan that was released for public review. A copy of this memorandum can be found at nextnetwork.vta.org.
Phase II Outreach Campaign and Feedback
Following the release of the Draft Transit Service Plan, VTA staff undertook a public engagement effort to collect input on how VTA could improve the Draft Transit Service Plan. This effort included:
86 staff presentations including community meetings, guest presentations, committee and Board agendized items, and city staff and council presentations
An information campaign including brochures, take-one cards, advertisements and an aggressive social media campaign in multiple languages
A print and broadcast media campaign that recorded 27 instances of local coverage
An online video campaign that achieved 111 live viewers, over 4,300 total views and 26,000 minutes of watch-time including webinars, two live-streamed public meetings and eight videos focused on transit changes around colleges
A multi-lingual project microsite (nextnetwork.vta.org) that recorded 355,000 unique visits and 1.4 million page views
A multi-lingual street team that engaged with riders at 14 different transit centers totaling 3,287 interactions with transit riders
A full documentation of community outreach can be found in Attachment B.
The outreach effort for the Draft Transit Service Plan yielded over 3,000 comments about the components of the Draft Transit Service Plan. These comments were often specific and detailed and focused on several themes:
Consensus that VTA’s ridership and farebox metrics were compelling reasons to make changes in the design of the transit network.
Endorsement of the idea that increasing access of residents and jobs to frequent (15- minute or better, all-day) service would make transit a more viable travel option for more Santa Clara County travelers.
Endorsement of more Rapid routes, particularly Rapid 523 in Sunnyvale and Cupertino.
Support for the Core Connectivity Project, which seeks to identify new ways of providing mobility in areas that are a poor fit for a fixed-route transit service such as contributing funds to city-operated shuttle programs or subsidizing on-demand trips in areas without fixed-route service.
Page 4 of 14
Concern for those who lose access to any transit service, particularly in Almaden Valley, South San Jose, East San Jose Hills Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Fremont. Routes 37, 45, 53, 65, 82, 88, 89, 120, and 181, which were proposed to be discontinued or have decreased levels of service were the subject of many comments.
Concern about the impact to paratransit users whose homes or destinations would fall outside of the paratransit service area or into the premium fare zone if fixed-route services along the periphery of the transit network are discontinued.
Interest in how VTA can better meet the needs of senior citizens.
A compendium of all comments on the Draft Transit Service Plan can be downloaded at nextnetwork.vta.org.
Final Transit Service Plan
In developing the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA staff sought to balance the direction to pursue a more ridership-oriented network with community requests to retain coverage-purposed routes that had been proposed to be discontinued. Ultimately, staff developed a compromise plan that retained some coverage-purposed routes, resulting in an 83/17 ridership/coverage balance. The Final Transit Service Plan (as shown in Attachment C) maintains all of the frequency increases proposed in the Draft Transit Service Plan and retains transit service in some corridors where discontinuances had been proposed. Attachment D includes by-route and by-city listings of all Final Transit Service Plan changes compared to the current transit service plan and Draft Transit Service Plan.
Changes from Draft Transit Service Plan to Final Transit Service Plan
Every transit service decision bears an opportunity cost as service hours that could benefit some travelers are shifted to benefit others. In making these decisions, VTA staff attempts to achieve the greatest good, balancing Board direction, ridership data, and community input while giving special consideration to the transportation needs of vulnerable populations such as students, seniors, the disabled, and low-income. The development of the Final Transit Service Plan attempts to achieve the best balance of all these factors within VTA’s allotted budget for transit operations. In this process, staff benefitted greatly from the extensive and detailed input received from Santa Clara County travelers during Phase II Outreach.
The following bullets briefly discuss elements of the Draft Transit Service Plan that received a high level of community input and the resulting staff recommendations for the Final Transit Service Plan. A detailed discussion of each service decision can be found in Attachment E.
Cupertino/Saratoga - De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Current Route 53) Recommendation: Continue service in this corridor by extending Route 51 south of De Anza College.
San Jose - Leigh Avenue (Route 65) Recommendation: Retain service on Route 65 and decrease frequency from 30-minute service level to 60-minute service level.
Page 5 of 14
Los Gatos/Campbell (Current Routes 48 and 49) Recommendation: Operate Route 27 on Main Street in Downtown Los Gatos as well as Hacienda Avenue and Knowles Drive to service Los Gatos El Camino Hospital and Los Gatos High School.
San Jose - Downtown (Current DASH)/Rapid 500 Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to upgrade the DASH to the Rapid 500 and add a Rapid 500 stop at Almaden Avenue.
Fremont/Sunnyvale (Route 120) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 120 in the Final Transit Service Plan.
Fremont/San Jose (Route 181) Recommendation: Given the extension of BART to Santa Clara County, alternate ways of making the trip by transit, and compelling needs for transit service inside Santa Clara County, staff does not recommend retaining Route 181.
Palo Alto - Gunn High School (Current Route 88) Recommendation: Provide a new Route 288 service during school bell times, with an additional after school trip to accommodate students involved in extracurricular activities. Discontinue Route 88.
Palo Alto - Veterans Hospital (Route 89) Recommendation: Retain Route 89 as it exists today to provide hospital access for veterans.
San Jose - East Hills (Current Route 45) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Service Plan’s recommendation to discontinue Route 45. VTA will offer to provide a van for use by the patrons of the Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility.
San Jose - Mineta San Jose Airport (Current Route 10) Recommendation: Due to the inability to enforce whether riders who board at non-airport stops are traveling to the airport, only provide free boardings at airport terminals. Non- airport terminal boardings require a standard fare.
Campbell/San Jose - Hamilton/Pine (Current Route 82) Recommendation: Discontinue Route 82 and retain transit service along Hamilton Avenue/Pine Avenue corridor by rerouting Route 56.
Gilroy (Current Routes 14, 17 and 19) Recommendation: Discontinue routes 14, 17 and 19 and replace them with a loop route, which will be named Route 85.
Page 6 of 14
Campbell/San Jose/Saratoga (Current Route 37) Recommendation: Retain Route 37 at a 60-minute frequency service level rather than a 30-minute service level. The portion of Route 37 that exhibits the greatest demand (from West Valley College to the Light Rail Line between Mountain View and Winchester) will be supplemented by Route 26, which offers 30-minute service.
Cupertino/Los Altos - Foothill and De Anza Colleges Recommendation: Due to insufficient demand, the Final Plan does not propose adding service between these two colleges.
San Jose - Forest Avenue (Current Route 23, new Route 59) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation to keep Route 23 on Stevens Creek, and extend Route 59 from its terminus at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station to serve Forest Avenue via Lafayette.
Sunnyvale - Civic Center (Current Route 54) Recommendations: Discontinue service on Route 54 along Olive Avenue.
Sunnyvale - Fair Oaks Avenue (Route 55) Recommendation: Retain the Draft Transit Service Plan’s recommendation of removing the Route 55 deviation that serves the Fair Oaks/Remington area. The volume and proximity of other transit services in the area (routes 22, 55, 522 and 523) provide adequate connectivity in all travel directions.
San Jose - Almaden Valley (Current Routes 13, 63, 64, 328 and 330) Recommendation: Extend Route 64, which currently terminates at Almaden Light Rail Station, to Camden Avenue and retain Route 13 (renamed to Route 83) with modifications to better serve the Almaden Community Center and shopping plazas at the intersection of Blossom Hill Road and Almaden Expressway. Additionally, VTA will explore an on-demand pilot service in Almaden Valley.
Retaining Access for Current Riders and Paratransit Clients
Of particular community concern were the proposals to discontinue routes in areas along the periphery of the transit network. Such changes would leave about one percent of current transit riders without any nearby transit service and would push some trips made by paratransit clients outside of the paratransit service area. The paratransit service area mirrors the shape of the fixed-route transit network. VTA is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to operate paratransit service in areas within ¾ of a mile of a fixed route while that route is in operation. VTA’s own paratransit policy extends the service area by an additional mile, at a higher fare. By retaining routes that were proposed to be discontinued in the Draft Transit Service Plan, the impact to current riders and paratransit riders is lessened considerably.
For example, while the Draft Transit Service Plan would result in about one percent of current weekday boardings being more than half a mile from a transit stop. The Final Transit Service Plan would reduce that to about half a percent. Similarly, the Draft Transit Service Plan would result in the homes of 47 current paratransit clients falling outside the paratransit service area.
Page 7 of 14
The Final Transit Service Plan reduces this number to two. A detailed analysis of paratransit impacts can be found in Attachment F.
Title VI Analysis
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that agencies that receive federal funding may not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.
Federal guidance encourages transit agencies to uphold Title VI in two ways: a metric-based analysis that evaluates the impact to minority and low income communities compared to the overall population of Santa Clara County, and by involving Title VI communities in the planning process so that their input may inform decisions as early as possible.
The metric-based evaluation of Title VI impacts for the Final Transit Service Plan was undertaken by an independent contractor and can be found in Attachment G. This analysis evaluates the impacts in two ways: 1) Disproportionate Impact, which measures the impact to minority residents and 2) Disproportionate Burden, which measures the impact to low-income residents. VTA’s Board-adopted threshold for determining Title VI impacts is 10 percent, meaning that a service change that decreases the provision of transit for minority or low-income residents at a rate 10 percent greater than a decrease for overall residents is presumed to be non- compliant with the mandates of Title VI.
The independent Title VI analysis found that compared to the overall population, access to transit for low-income and minority residents of Santa Clara County increased slightly. As such, the metric based analysis finds that no disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens would result from the proposed transit service changes.
VTA sought to involve Title VI communities in the Next Network planning process by working with VTA’s Title VI Office and following the VTA’s Public Participation Plan. This included outreach to organizations that represent minority, low-income, and immigrant communities, hosting community meetings and workshops throughout the county, and partnering with Working Partnerships USA to gain input from transit riders and minority and low-income residents. Additionally, a multi-lingual advertising campaign spread awareness of the proposed service changes and a multi-lingual website encouraged residents to provide feedback in their preferred languages. A full list of outreach to Title VI groups can be found in Attachment B.
Ridership Projections
Ridership projections for the Final Transit Service Plan must be viewed in the context of current ridership trends. In Santa Clara County, ridership in FY2016 was two percent lower than FY2015. To date, FY2017 ridership (through January 2017) is down 11.6 percent compared to FY2016. These are significant decreases for an agency that has had relatively flat ridership for the previous ten years. These trends are not isolated to Santa Clara County. CityLab reports that transit ridership has been declining nationally with seven of the 30 largest metropolitan areas losing riders over the past calendar year. Only two metropolitan areas, Seattle, WA (4.1 percent) and Houston, TX (2.3 percent), showed increases in ridership over this time and both agencies have recently completed transit network redesigns that allocated a greater share of operations funding to ridership-purposed routes.
Page 8 of 14
Many potential reasons for the national ridership decline have been identified including low gas prices, rising automobile ownership, higher income levels, on-demand services, corporate shuttles, unprecedented weather events, continued suburbanization, the suburbanization of poverty and changing demographics. Nationwide research into these influences is emerging and VTA is following these reports and is evaluating its own data to assess impacts at the local level.
Given the recent seismic shift in transit ridership, uncertainty about the cause, and inability to predict whether these trends will continue, it would be impractical to project ridership totals as a specific number. Rather, projections for the Final Transit Service Plan are presented in comparison to a scenario where VTA retains the current transit service plan. These projections are developed using VTA’s countywide transportation demand model and do not account for potential changes to demand that may result from changes to VTA’s fare policy, which may include free VTA-to-VTA transfers for Clipper Card users, changes in pricing to the base fare, youth fares, community bus fares and EcoPass.
Our analysis projects that the Final Transit Service Plan could potentially result in an increase in transit boardings as follows:
A 15 to 20 percent increase in light rail ridership. This is driven by the addition of the Orange Light Rail Line which connects Downtown Mountain View with the Milpitas BART Station and Alum Rock Transit Center at 15-minute all day service.
An 8 to 10 percent increase in bus ridership. This is due to the increase in frequent, all-day services, the restructuring of VTA’s network to an interconnected grid and the new connection to BART service.
Changes in ridership typically take up to two years to stabilize, though early trends can give an indication as to whether ridership increases are materializing on a system-wide and individual route basis, as shown in the table below. Depending on how ridership changes in the first 6 months, VTA will have a sense for what the eventual ridership changes may be and whether adjustments are necessary. Decreases in ridership immediately after big network changes are common as transit riders adapt to the new service. These decreases can be minimized by information and marketing campaigns.
6 Months 70% of ridership change realized
12 Months 80% of ridership change realized
18 Months 90% of ridership change realized
24 Months 100% of ridership change realized
These projections are based on BART providing two lines of service into Santa Clara County. BART’s initial operating plan calls for one of the two lines that currently serve the Fremont BART Station to be extended to the Berryessa BART Station. The second line is expected to be extended in 2018 or 2019. As a result, the impact that new BART service will have on ridership growth may be reduced in the initial 12 to 24 months after BART service begins.
Page 9 of 14
Related Efforts and Issues
Core Connectivity
Fixed route transit service is not always the best mobility solution for every community. As discussed in the Transit Choices Report, some communities will have features that are not supportive of fixed route transit, such as lower land use densities, first/last-mile gaps, an environment not designed for pedestrians, or a street grid not conducive to transit access. Such areas of our county have always struggled with poor transit access and low productivity under the one-size-fits-all model of fixed route service. As the industry evolves to acknowledge that fixed route transit is not always the best solution, more flexible models of transit service are emerging as potential solutions to provide better mobility for the residents of these communities. VTA’s Core Connectivity will explore and develop solutions for these areas where fixed route transit may not be the best approach.
The 2016 Measure B includes a funding category for “innovative first/last mile solutions.” While a program has yet to be determined by the VTA Board, this funding category could potentially include an on-demand transit service solution. For example, under Core Connectivity, VTA is exploring a pilot, on-demand transportation approach in Almaden Valley. Such a pilot could leverage VTA’s paratransit contractor’s ability to utilize on-demand software and excess capacity on Paratransit vehicles (and potentially a multi-provider service, where VTA software would interface with multiple transportation providers such as paratransit, taxis and on-demand service providers to meet trip demand with the most cost-effective option) to deliver service within this area. The pilot could further serve as a model for on-demand service that could be replicated for other areas in the county to replace unproductive fixed route service.
VTA staff is also exploring additional options which may include a senior/municipal shuttle operating subsidy. The Core Connectivity process will engage the VTA Board and committees in exploring the development of a countywide program. The scale of this program would depend on the level of city partnership and how much funding VTA’s Board of Directors allocates for first/last-mile solutions.
Fare Policy Review
Staff is reviewing VTA’s fare policy within the context of the service redesign objectives of increasing transit ridership and improving farebox recovery. A specific focus is aligning VTA’s fare policy with the design of a transit network that encourages making transfers between routes. VTA’s present policy of charging cash-paying customers each time they board a vehicle discourages transfers. Additionally, staff is evaluating lowering the cost of youth fares, continuing the Transit Assistance Program (TAP) for low income riders, restructuring the Eco pass program, and adjusting the base fare-which VTA has not done since 2009.
VTA sought input on the fare policy as part of the Draft Transit Service Plan outreach. Finance staff engaged with the public at all nine VTA-hosted community meetings and sought input on VTA’s fare policy through an online survey which was promoted on the nextnetwork.vta.org microsite, at community meetings, staff presentations and on social media. Staff will present a preliminary fare change proposal at the April 21, 2017 Board Workshop that includes a preliminary Title VI Fare Equity Analysis and summary of revenue impacts from proposed fare
Page 10 of 14
changes. Additional community outreach is planned in May and a recommended fare proposal is scheduled for Board adoption in June of 2017.
Next Steps
Implementation
Upon adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA Operations staff will begin the large task of turning a high-level service plan into a finely-tuned schedule that coordinates connections with regional transit services. Drivers will undergo training on the Final Transit Service Plan to ensure familiarity with new or changed routes. Operations staff will also develop vehicle circulation plans for the new transit centers at Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations.
The timing of service changes will largely be dependent upon the start of service to the Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations which itself is dependent upon construction and systems testing being completed on time. Changes to special school bell-timed service would be timed for summer or winter breaks to minimize disruption in student travel patterns.
Information and Marketing Campaign
In order to maximize awareness of the service changes, VTA will undertake a robust, multi- lingual information and marketing campaign to promote the new service plan. This campaign will begin in the second half of 2017 with intense promotion in the three months prior to service change implementation. This effort will target Santa Clara County travelers as well as East Bay BART travelers and will consist of print, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, billboard, and social media advertising. Additionally, VTA will use its own resources to promote the service including: vehicle wraps, shelter posters, car cards, in-vehicle printed collateral, and promotion through the WiFi splash page. A multi-lingual microsite will allow riders to explore the new service plan and compare their trips in the current and future networks. VTA’s operators and customer service representatives will receive training and VTA staff will serve as in-person ambassadors at transit centers providing information in the opening days of service.
New Transit System Map and Route Timeguides
Following the adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA will redesign its transit system map and route timeguides to make them easier to use and more useful. The redesigned system map will focus on frequency rather than service classes, as the current map does. The redesigned timeguides will feature more useful maps that can serve as a resource during trip planning, travel and after disembarking the bus or train. These changes follow national design trends as well as a recommendation from JWA regarding how to reduce information barriers to transit ridership.
Express Bus Study
Following adoption of the Final Transit Service Plan, VTA staff will undertake a study of Express Bus routes, which are peak-period routes that are designed to take commuters long distances at high speeds. With the exception of Express Routes 120, 140, 180 and 181 which currently serve the Fremont BART Station, VTA has excluded changes to express routes from the Final Transit Service Plan. The Express Bus Study will evaluate whether changes should be
Page 11 of 14
made to those routes, or new ones added given the new transit network and changes in travel demand since the last Express Bus Plan was developed in 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At the November 18, 2016 Board Workshop, VTA’s Board of Directors endorsed the staff recommendation to return with a Draft Transit Service Plan that employed an 85/15 ridership/coverage plan that was service hour neutral, meaning it would reflect the same number of hours of service being provided. Bus Service Although 1,595,000 bus service hours were budgeted in FY17, the actual service hours for FY17 are projected to be 1,499,000 due to a number of planned service changes that were put on hold pending the finalization of the Next Network process. The budgeted service hours for FY18 and FY19 include the 102,000 service hours that were deferred in FY17, resulting in an increase in cost of approximately $12 million per year. Light Rail Service For light rail service, a combination of the proposed Orange Line service (Alum Rock to Mountain View) and the increase in mid-day frequency on the Green Line (Winchester to Old Ironsides) is expected to increase service hours by 38,000 and operating expenses by approximately $11 million per year. Approaches to accommodating these increases in costs could include revenue from projected increases in ridership generated by the proposed service revisions, changes to fare structure, potential increased ridership as a result of Transit Oriented Development, and use of the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations program. The budgetary impacts of these proposed changes will be reflected in the Proposed FY18 and FY19 Transit Fund Operating Budget. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Technical Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and many committee members expressed appreciation to VTA staff for their robust outreach efforts and discussions with city staff. A majority of committee members expressed a strong desire to partner with VTA to use 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program funds to implement new mobility solutions in their communities; however nearly all expressed concern about the timeline and requested VTA accelerate the program's development so that the services could be in place in time for implementation of the new fixed route network when BART opens. Committee members had the following additional comments and questions: 1) clarification that school-oriented service will continue; 2) asked for clarification on proposed service near the Sunnyvale Civic Center; 3) asked for clarification on the request to provide new service between Foothill and De Anza colleges; 4) expressed concern for the cost of the paratransit premium-zone service; 5) expressed concern about the loss of Route 88 in Palo Alto; 6) asked if service information will be published to 511.org; 7) requested BART ridership information at stations; 8) announced that Gilroy and Morgan Hill are discussing a partnership and will make a formal request to partner with VTA to provide some kind of senior mobility service under the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models
Page 12 of 14
program. Staff answered 1) yes, school service will continue; 6) yes, schedule will be published to 511.org. The committee voted 14-to-1 to recommend approval of the final transit service plan and to recommend that VTA lead the development of a 2016 Measure B countywide program to identify gaps in the transit market and offer solutions which could be implemented prior to implementation of the new transit network.
The Citizens Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and commended staff for excellent depth of analysis and explanatory materials. Committee members had the following questions or comments: 1) asked about construction-related impacts on the Rapid 500 on Santa Clara Street when BART Phase 2 work occurs; 2) expressed concern for SJSU riders having to walk a block to Rapid 500; 3) expressed appreciation that paratransit users were considered and impacts minimized; 4) asked for clarification on the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program; 5) asked why VTA ridership has been declining; 6) expressed concern for loss of Express 120 service for Fremont residents; 7) liked the strategy to simplify the classes of transit service; 8) asked for clarification regarding proposed Morgan Hill service; 9) expressed appreciation for staff's detailed work and the Board packet attachments; 10) asked if Route 65 could be improved to 30-minute frequency; 11) liked the move to an all-day transit network; 12) relayed that a member of the community has a number of concerns about the plan, expressed in an email to the committee member; 13) asked about service for the airport and Levi's/Avaya stadium events; 14) expressed eager anticipation for the forthcoming Express Bus study; 15) understood the need to discontinue some Gilroy service because of low ridership, explained very well in the supporting materials; 16) expressed appreciation for staff's consideration of the paratransit impacts, which have been greatly minimized in the final plan; 17) asked staff to make sure routes coordinate with SJSU class schedules; 18) appreciate staff meeting with DASH stakeholders. Staff answered 1) BART Phase 2 construction will have impacts that will be dealt with at the appropriate time; 2) staff met with SJSU and the walk distance is not the primary concern for SJSU riders; 5) a new group of VTA senior staff has been convened to examine the research into why transit usage is falling across the country; 10) Route 65 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan and the final plan proposes a restoration at a lower service level to better match the demand for service; 13) the Orange light rail line will provide a BART connection to Levi's stadium for events, and Route 60 will provide more connections to Avaya stadium, though VTA will continue to provide special event service where necessary; 17) schedules will be coordinated to SJSU class times where appropriate and possible. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee considered this item on April 12 and expressed great appreciation to staff for their extensive outreach and the high quality and breadth of the memo and the supporting materials. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) like the increased service level on Route 57 and 60; 2) like the extension of the Route 60 from Winchester to the airport and then Milpitas BART; 3) look forward the discussion of adding additional service to the plan's transit network using forthcoming 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Core Bus Network funds. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan.
The Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility considered this item on April 13 and thanked staff for "hitting the mark" on the plan, particularly the process of listening to
Page 13 of 14
concerns and revising the draft plan accordingly. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) appreciated the plan's webinars; 2) asked staff to clarify the 2-year ridership maturation projection; 3) expressed concern about the loss of service along Route 54; 4) expressed difficulty in keeping up with transit schedule changes every 3 months; 5) asked about the timing of renumbering Route 81 to 51; 6) asked for clarification of the final plan's proposal for Almaden Valley; 7) asked if VTA could use smaller buses in areas of lower ridership; 8) asked staff to clarify the proposal for Route 200 and 62; and 9) relayed recent student and rider concerns about safety on light rail. Staff will investigate safety concerns and follow up with the committee member. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan.
The Policy Advisory Committee considered this item on April 13 and expressed unanimous appreciation to staff for the "phenomenal" and broad outreach effort. Committee members had the following comments or questions: 1) when will we see results of the forthcoming Express Bus Study? 2) asked for clarification of the paratransit impacts in Alameda County; 3) asked if staff can accelerate the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program; 4) expressed concern regarding the industry's recent ridership declines; 5) clarified that the proposed final plan does not yet include Measure B Transit Operations Core Network Improvements funds; 6) asked if VTA has ever partnered with, or would be willing to in the future, local municipalities to provide a cooperative shuttle/small bus transit service for areas left unserved by VTA's big buses; 7) expressed concern for the high paratransit fare for premium-zone trips, particularly in Morgan Hill; 8) look forward to exploring 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program to reduce school congestion, perhaps similar to Contra Costa County's Traffix model; 9) appreciate the multilingual outreach and outreach to communities of concern like East San Jose; 10) understood the need to discontinue some very unproductive routes, such as Route 17 in Gilroy, even though the decisions are difficult, and feel like staff did an excellent job listening to the concerns, considering ways to address them, looking at all the data, and writing a detailed explanation of decisions that covered every concern point-by-point. Staff replied 1) the Express Bus study will likely begin later this year and conclude in 2018; 6) VTA will explore potential partnerships for cooperative service under the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Innovative First/Last-Mile Service Models program. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the final transit service plan.
Prepared by: Adam Burger Memo No. 5897
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Current Transit Service Plan (PDF) Attachment B - Phase II Outreach Summary (PDF) Attachment C - Final Transit Service Plan Maps - Frequency Table - Light Rail System Map - Service Profile (PDF) Attachment D - Route by Route List of Changes (PDF) Attachment E - Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan (PDF) Attachment F - Paratransit Service Impacts (PDF) Attachment G - VTA Service Equity Analysis Report (PDF)
Page 14 of 14 Attachment13.a A 180
y it rs e e 66 s VTA iv c n ALO LTO u u P A e l r a e om h 35 46 181 88 l e m XISTING ETWORK m Palo Alto id 101 b i lp E N d a i lefi t 88 a
e s calaverast ld e p m alma a y r RIDERSHIP GOAL COVERAGE GOAL 89 p n 47 k (70% , 30% ) h l e a 120 l i t v e c r i a b
m a c 88a c t in f 182 102 o 1 c o
a 104 st 47 r 46 h r 104 m i ano e f a al f 40 66 103 r forni ver ro 47 li 522 e 35 o
a d 120237 680 st a n VTA Route Midday Frequencies
c r 58 AY ILPITAS104 t g s 104
102 ca n landess 22 ra 104 i W 180 r a e Milpitas 32 r 89 ORREGAS e 71 103 LOCKHEED MARTIN B ISCO REAT ALL AIN h ja 120 m ILL I-880/M G M / M e v i a a C l 181
AYPOINTE
v n ROSSMAN
i M 330
104 i l 104 MERICA HAMPION B e C at Rapid: every 15 minutes
e AKS ICK 140 140 104 ey w C l e r t A ONTAGUE p 102 t AYSHORE r RONSIDES L o o 104 O cr 182 88SAN ANTONIO e B OFFETT g I TASMAN M h f51 EAMWOOD 34 120 f 104 IENNA LD REAT lafayette 330 104 s M ARK AIR R 70 o P 237 F sman V O G li and limited stops m ta c k 180 ROPLEY 54 55 m 181 C p 102 MOUNTAIN VIEW 120 il i c 200 l RIVER OAKS e 89 a 32 IDDLEFIELD d 104 lif34 m 200 55 122 ntagu or M o e m f ni ce a m o a n HISMAN 200ud 57 m on o tr e 26 a W 328 o t l 321 104 t Every 15 minutes or better OSTETTER h ISSION OLLEGE r r i M C RCHARD rill l 200 w 58 O 77 e H 62 102 l Mountain ne tt mathilda g l a 66 u te d s 61 103 o n duane miss e o f io a d l 71 san antonio n 321 h t 55 ic 180 o evelyn 122 60 l k y a k View l ERRYESSA y 182 32 a in on 52 c BONAVENTURA 880 n B 121 s g 328 r d k o e ld u r a a 168 522 SUNNYVALE 55 arques 122 z Every 20 minutes o 304 61 e 304 COMPONENT m t 57 n 22 air26 45 issi 40 o f 58 ENITENCIA tt P e o m s w 180 304 r rn n ka k v 280 el e i
bu les i 328 122 ro r e w k eb w ARINA b
e 55 o 58 101 K y
p 16 330 r EE e 26 b u 68 lf lm ab K e C e a 51 o t Every 30-59 minutes n h 181 m a d Sunnyvale t r M r h reed t c grant on 53a METRO/AIRPORT a co 52 32 o s 70 n 71 85 c ERRYESSA 101 m 60 r springer B
s es a 1s 62 e o y 40 r 54 m nr AN OSE r i o 304 S J r 121 b e t e m remingt on 32 AIRPORT b 168 16 61 180 102 Santa Clarac GISH 77 h 32 o a n FOOTHILL COLLEGE le Every 60 minutes or worse i mckee le a 103 330 m 121 m 57 an ALUM ROCK ga 10 ng 25 fremont 60 10 i j o el camino re SANTA CLARA d66 a 182 t al ed 122 c MAIN & HALE e a h 522 k nn 522 22 alum rock s du 51 ar o s or 23 n white - IVIC ENTER l 64 103 58 laf C C ay m e t l n on e to e a 22
c n 71 be y mas n v t e Peak only e 26 81 lia a wolfe o t u
en 25 r t j 77 103 e ar
r t l c y 280 e n APANTOWN
w 522 J unny a nta
mary
a a s
55s l s hollenbeck ry 522 homestead 304 22 22 to c 53 54 72 s 70 a 81 81 San Jose 103p 68 i SUPERIOR COURT to 121 103 182 l u 328 60 SANTA CLARA VTA light rail 168 a 180 t e 330 saratoga la 81n m 880 PASEO DE SAN ANTONIO 77 a a gle IRIDON c issi 62 D 103 t 328 a o t 57 n t y CONVENTION CENTER e o l VALLEY FAIR mclaughlin n n 25 k r Cupertino e 61 81 i v i 63 121 n ASTRIDGE bu les i E e 51 k stevens creek 70g 71 eeb w 23 p 16 e 102 lf lm 23 mb y
i m 68 a es 22 qu VTA Transit Center e h y an e 72 TC r 61 k u ch 182 103 co DE ANZA ri 101 280 parkmoor VIRGINIA senter llo OLLEGE 10362 182 RACE ST64 77 70 C b 26 25 25 26 121 o monterey a lli 25nger 58 65 39 168 nz 82 304 73 16 25 williams fruitdale TAMIEN h aborn s e a 25 RUITDALE a a in 25 F n le a d SCV M EDICAL tully 31 f m 66 121 el ENTER w ipe Other Transit Services ing C o l ll l 82 AIN ALE wi 25 168 31 elta M & H e e 101 68 d n t un 330 d s 57 60 182 64 EVERGREEN m 328 BASCOM on 26 COLLEGE t p e rospect hamilton Caltrain / ACE r bascom e 101 b y 26 328 82 a uena AMILTON82 82 70 rb H 68 73 122 72 ye42 102 101 gCURTNER u commuter rail a
winchester 68 68 campbell d the village 26 a s 26 65 63 l 304 OWNTOWN AMPBELL u 85 D C 26 p 42 328 61 e saratoga meridian 58 Campbell curtner 330 WINCHESTER 62 73
quito hillsdale nter 53 se 121 Morgan Hill Service 48 37 70 72 57 64 capitol saratoga-sunnyvale 26 CAPITOL hacienda 37 70 101 natural area WEST VALLEY allendale 37 73 102 37 48 hillsdale 72 37 49 168
s n a 53 lard
l o n o m m p 37 i BRANHAM 182 y anham r
n br i e u s
i u r r d r c i 42 a r 48 m61 d o 304 68 amd ede y Saratoga o 37 i
101 a o lli n r outside Santa Clara County nte asc49 h 122 an 102 b 328e m g i n HLONE HYNOWETH 19 121 62 e O /C 68 n l we lbur 65 66 n 168 sam 168 r r a AKRIDGE m ritan 102 O e e o t 27 k 102 85 LOSSOM ILL 61 d B H 1st n s 62 l t a e he e r i 27 27 42 s r r c 63 f ilv p ey o n n e r y i 27 i 13 r i o s 27 l 3rd nce w 64 NELL os almade w S e121 o gat n af t os ALMADEN v a l a 101 n g lle e 6t h r 19 49 a COTTLE s w os 65 a l l s 8th m an n blossom hill 63 ta ta t 18 27 ad eresa 168
t 27 ANTA ERESA e th 122 v S T 0 e ia r 1 48 304 e n 66 d s Los Gatos e 121 a 328 l o 42 l r l o m z 13 e o 168 u n r 328 n t s 68 er s c e cottle a a y t m n o m a ain h t s camden 63 18
s a n n m w s a y o i 328 n u s r t i a r d c r t a r e 68 o r y 68 e sa lli nnte 182 ma 13 Gilroy Service 19 121 n ry we lbur r n 168 a r m h
e o
k 1st n t e a r r r p ey o r y i o 0 1 2 3 4 mi 3rd nce
v a 101 n lle e 6t h r 19 s w a 8th n ta 18
t h e 0t r 1 e s a 04/19/2016
s
a
m
o
h
t 18 13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
In January and February of 2017, VTA conducted a community engagement campaign that featured several community meetings, presentations, marketing, media coverage and outreach through businesses, community organizations and Title VI groups among others. The following lists summarize the Phase II outreach campaign. External Engagement 2,500+ incoming public comments collected via phone, e‐mail and specialized microsite https://nextnetwork.vta.org Nine public meetings held thus far resulted in: o Average attendance = 46; o Total attendance = 421 16 videos (2 live streamed meetings, 5 geographically‐focused webinars, 8 college‐focused videos) – key metrics include: o 4,300 views o 111 live viewers o 25,700 hours of watch time o 250 comments o 45 thumbs‐up and 75 shares Countywide Title 6 mailing to 150 organizations Targeted South County Title 6 mailing to 80 organizations Community presentations include: Saratoga Senior Center, SJ District 1 Leadership Council, SPUR, Transform, Gunn High School PTA, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Hope Services, Centennial Recreation Senior Center (Morgan Hill), Traffic Safe Communities Network among others Outreach to Community Based Organizations, offering presentations/literature for distribution Educational Institution Transit Fairs: San Jose State, De Anza, SCU, City College Street Team ambassadors deployed in the field at major transit hubs for 10 days; reach was over 3,300 individuals.
Marketing Collateral Car cards translated in 5 languages on all vehicles Proposed discontinued route flyers distributed on affected bus lines Bus Stop signage at proposed deleted stations Light Rail Station and Bus Shelter Posters Passenger Information Message Signs on light rail platforms Bus Bench Ads Special Take Ones (passenger newsletter translated in 5 languages with proposed service map) on board buses and at major literature distribution points Two rounds of print newspaper ads in 24 publications targeting community and minority publications including: San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, Metro Newspapers, Gilroy Dispatch/Morgan Hill Times, El Observador, News for Chinese, Philippine
1
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
News, Korea Daily, Thoi Bao/Vietnam Daily News, Palo Alto Daily Newspaper, Santa Clara Weekly, Evergreen/Almaden Times Aggressive social media (Twitter, Facebook, Gov Delivery, Next Door) campaign promoting meetings and webinars
Digital/Others Wi Fi Splash Page directing riders to https://nextnetwork.vta.org Spanish language radio advertisements (KRZZ) Pandora Ads (targeted to Santa Clara County) Digital Display Ads (targeted to Santa Clara County) Eco Pass email blast Targeted email blast to North San Jose employers and to employers along the Express 185 route
Media Coverage 27 stories about VTA's Next Network appeared as follows: o 1/5/17 Jeannie Bruin's OpEd in SJ Mercury News, Palo Alto Weekly, Mountain View Voice o 1/6/17 SJ Mercury News and Morgan Hill Times o 1/9/17 SJ Mercury News, Biz Journal and KPIX Ch. 5 CBS o 1/10/17 SF Bay.com o 1/13/17 Biz Journal, SJ Mercury News and KNTV Ch. 3 NBC o 1/14‐17/17 Milpitas Post and Saratoga Patch o 1/25/17 Palo Alto Weekly o 1/26/17 San Jose Mercury News and San Jose Blog o 2/6/17 San Jose Mercury News and Gun High School Oracle Newspaper o 2/7/17 Mountain View Voice o 2/8/17 Los Altos Town Crier o 2/13/17 South Comm Business Media o 2/15/17 San Jose Mercury News o 2/21/17 San Jose Mercury News (Roadshow) San Jose Mercury News (Herhold) o 2/21/17 Gilroy Dispatch o 2/27/17 San Jose Mercury News All main broadcast outlets were contacted resulting in stories or mentions as follows: o KNTV Ch.3, KTVU Ch.2, KPIX Ch. 5, KGO TV Ch. 7, KRON Ch. 4, Univision KDTV Ch. 14 and Telemundo KSTS Ch.48 (no story) KCBS (interview and story) Eight Headways featured blog articles about: Next Network Outreach effort, fare policy, status update, public input so far, video on how the draft plan would affect services to colleges, VTA’s Street Team, the last public meeting night and the later release of the final plan; distributed through email, monthly newsletter and on all social media channels. Potential Stories Pending: We held media interviews on 2/21/17 with San Jose State University Update Television News, on 3/8/17 with San Jose News Group, and on 3/9/17 with San Jose Spartan Daily
Outreach thru Business Development Partnerships: Nate Donato‐Weinstein: City San Jose Economic Development o Newsletter/first of the month
2
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Rahul Chandhok, 49ers o Newsletter o Emails/follow up in person meetings Alex Sanchez: ROEM developments John Boslet: Irvine developments Sharon Fredlund: BOMA o Newsletter Derrick Seaver: Silicon Valley Chamber/Organization Chris O’Connor/Matt Quevedo: SVLeadershipGroup Moffett, Mountain View, Stanford TMAs Economic Development Directors: Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View Larry Carr: Joint Venture SV
Outreach to “Neighbors” in North 1st/Tasman/Montague/Brokaw: Glen Hendricks/PayPal Serena Poon/SV Bank Ali Ahmed: Cisco Dan Poritzky/Shawn Williams: LeEco Paula Kutansky‐Brown: Next EV/NIO NXP Mike Jones: Cadence Dave Hendrickson: Oracle Michael Strle: Great Mall Rawley Bushman/Karin Hughes: Samsung Nerissa Flanderz: Infinitysolutions Applied Materials Fujitsu Michael Alba/Danielle Glaser: LinkedIn Ryan Kauffman: Apple Terry Smith: Microsoft Downtown Residential/Downtown Association Westfield Valley Fair: Scot Vallee
Outreach to Title VI Organizations Chi Am Circle Inc Dalai Lama Foundation Bread Of Life Evangelistic Walls of Faith Ministries Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility Congregation Beth Am Reform Addison‐Penzak Jewish Community Center San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP John Stott Ministries Sri Satya Narayana Swamy Devasthanam International New Wave Ministries
3
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Correctional Institutions Chaplaincy ROCK of Salvation Church Christian Worship Center San Jose Christian Assembly North Valley Christian Fellowship Crosspoint Chinese Church Of Silicon Valley Bridgeway Church Good Shepherd Community Church BuddhistTzu Chi Medical Foundation Brahma Kumaris Silicon Valley Pakistani American Culture Center Baha'i Faith of Palo Alto Saint Vincent De Paul Project Victory Grace Lutheran Church E L C A Russian Orthodox Church Hall Native TANF Program Afghan Islamic Association African American Community Services American Indian Education Center Arab American Congress Asian Americans for Community Involvement: AAIC Assyrian American Association of San Jose California Italian‐American Casa Do Benfica Castellano Family Foundation Center of Spiritual Enlightenment Chinese American Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Mekong Community Center Mexican Heritage Corporation Mexican Heritage Plaza National Council of Negro Women National Latino Peace Officers Association Portuguese Athletic Club Portuguese Community Center Rahima Foundation San Jose Cambodian Buddhist Society San Jose Firefighters IAFF Local 230 Santa Clara County Black Firefighters Association Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Silicon Valley Somos Mayfair South Bay Japanese Community Taiwanese American Center Unique Zan Foundation Ujima Adult & Family Services
4
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Viet‐American Cultural Foundation (vietacf) George Shirakawa Community Center Vietnamese American Community of Northern California Vietnamese American Council Vietnamese Cultural Association Inc of Santa Clara County Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California California Israel Chamber of Commerce VIVE CHURCH Sanatana Dharma Kendra Unidos De Jesucristo SIREN (Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network) Council on American‐Islamic Relations CAIR California Youth Chinese Symphony Multi‐Cultural Center MCC (Santa Clara University) Silicon Valley Chao Chow Community Center of San Jose Glad Tidings Christian Chinese Rainbow Chamber Silicon Valley South Bay Church ‐ North San Jose Campus WestGate Church ‐ Saratoga Campus South Bay Church ‐ Sunnyvale Campus Full Gospel Korean Assembly Chung Tai Zen Center Of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church Sacred Logos Resource Center‐Sagos Christian Leadership Institute Korean Peresbyterian Church San Jose Triumphant Life Center Catholic Academy Resurrection Catholic Church Intersection Teen Ministry Oshman Family Jewish Community Center Balaji Temple Arab American Congress of Silicon Valley China Silicon Valley Association Chinese Community Center Chinese Seniors Club of Santa Clara Valley Chinese Software Professionals Association Eritrean Community In Santa Clara County Ethiopian Bay Area Muslims Assoc Ethiopian Community Services Fiesta Educativa Sur De La Bahia Filipino American Chamber of Commerce Filipino Youth Coalition German American Club Grupo De Carnaval Cultural Portugues De Sao Jose
5
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Hindu Temple & Community Center Hip Sen Association Hispanic Development Corporation Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley International Children Assistance Network (ICAN) Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Bay Area India Community Center International Hispanic Network Italian American Heritage Foundation Italian Mens Club Japantown Business Association Jewish Family Services Silicon Valley Jewish Family & Children's Services Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley Hillel of Silicon Valley Community Child Care Council Community Child Care Council Khmer Kampuchean Krom Buddhist Northside Community Center Korean American Community Services La Raza Roundtable de California Latinas Contra Cancer Little Italy San Jose Los Bomberos of Northern California Los Fundadores, the Founders and Friends of Santa Clara County Macla/Movimiento De Arte Y Cultura Latino Americana MACSA Youth Center Pars Equality Center Santa Clara Woman's Club Adobe Sociedade Filarmonica Uniao Popular Silicon Valley Black Chamber of Commerce Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation Evergreen Valley College San Jose City College
6
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
Draft Transit Service Plan Presentations
January 4 Tailgate at North Bus Yard Presentation: TransForm
January 5 Tailgate at Chaboya Bus Yard VTA Board Meeting – Release of Draft Plan
January 7 Joint Workforce Investment (VTA bus driver mentorship program)
January 9 Tailgate at Cerone Bus Yard City of Morgan Hill Staff Briefing
January 11 Presentation: VTA Technical Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Citizens Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Community Meeting: Downtown San Jose
January 12 Meeting: Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Presentation: VTA Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility Meeting: Amalgamated Transit Union Leadership Presentation: VTA Policy Advisory Committee Community Meeting: Milpitas
January 14 Presentation: San Jose District 1 Leadership Group
January 17 Presentation: SPUR San Jose Lunch Forum Webinar: Focus on Morgan Hill and Gilroy
January 18 City of San Jose Council Office Staff Briefing Community Meeting: Cupertino
January 19 Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Silicon Valley BART Extension Coordination Meeting Community Meeting: Palo Alto City Hall
January 23 Presentation: Grand Boulevard Initiative Working Committee City of Sunnyvale Staff Briefing Study Session: Palo Alto City Council Community Meeting: Campbell
January 24 Webinar: Focus on South San Jose Presentation: Los Gatos Senior Citizens and Community Services Presentation: Cupertino City Council
January 25 VTA Customer Service Briefing Presentation: VTA Administration and Finance Committee Presentation: Saratoga Senior Center Study Session: Morgan Hill City Council
7
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
January 26 VTA Customer Service Briefing Webinar: Focus on West Valley
January 30 City of Los Alto Staff Briefing Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility
January 31 City of Campbell Staff Briefing Study Session: Sunnyvale City Council
February 1 Presentation: VTA Committee for Transit Mobility and Accessibility Presentation: CalWorks Presentation: India Community Center Presentation: Saratoga City Council
February 2 Presentation: Mountain View Transit Center Redesign Committee Update: VTA Board of Directors Meeting (GM Report)
February 3 Presentation: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
February 6 Community Meeting: Mountain View Presentation: Sunnyvale Library Trustees
February 7 Meeting: Palo Alto/Gunn High School Parent Teacher Students Association Webinar: Focus on Palo Alto Presentation: San Jose BART Community Working Group Presentation: Santa Clara City Council
February 8 Presentation: VTA Land Use and Transportation Integration Working Group City of Milpitas Staff Briefing Presentation: VTA Technical Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Citizens Advisory Committee Presentation: VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
February 9 Presentation: Hope Services Presentation: Traffic Safe Communities Network Presentation: VTA Employee Advisory Committee City of Gilroy Staff Briefing Presentation: VTA Policy Advisory Committee Presentation: Santa Clara BART Community Working Group Presentation: Town of Los Gatos Transportation and Parking Commission Presentation: Santa Clara County Cities Association
February 10 San Jose State University Transit Solutions Meeting
February 13 Presentation: City of San Jose Green Commute Community Meeting: East San Jose
February 14 Presentation: Moffett Park Traffic Management Association
8
13.b Attachment B – Phase II Outreach Summary
February 15 Presentation: O’Connor Hospital Seniors Presentation: Morgan Hill Seniors Webinar: Focus on Milpitas and North San Jose Community Meeting: Gilroy
February 16 Presentation: Senior Round Table Meeting: District 10 Council Office Presentation: VTA Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee Presentation: VTA Administration and Finance Committee Presentation: VTA Safety, Security and Transit Planning and Operations Committee Community Meeting: South San Jose
February 21 Presentation: Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Meeting: Santa Clara University Transportation Administration
March 9 Downtown San Jose Business Association, San Jose State University, City of San Jose
March 21 Milpitas City Council Presentation
March 30 South County Cities
9
Attachment13.c C AC217
y it rs e e v s i c n u u e
r l
e a om PALO ALTO h INAL LAN 66 F P 21 247 247 246 m l m Palo Alto id 101 e b i
d lp a
l i
efi t 22 e 288 a s calaveras RIDERSHIP GOAL COVERAGE GOAL ld t (83% , 17% ) e 288L p m 522 alma 288M a r y 47 p n k
h e l a v l c i t e a r i m b a c
i a c t VTA Weekday Route Frequencies n f o 1 c Milpitas o
a r st r h e m i ano a f Alviso a 246 l f forni ver n r AC217 li o o
a t 237 680 s st n 59 247 c le 66 r 288 g Rapid: every 15 minutes or
ca
a n 47 landess h i MILPITAS r 89 c e r LDER 40 LOCKHEED MARTIN ORREGAS e 21 B 47 A h ja m BART better and limited stops e v i a a 59 l
AYPOINTE
n v ROSSMAN
i
i l 51 B e C at
e AKS ey w 40 l e r t p t r RONSIDES ba o 288M AN NTONIO o O r Every 15 minutes or better S A e g I c h f f EAMWOOD LD lafayette 288L s o AIR R 237 F sman O li m ta c 71 288 k ROPLEY 70 ro OUNTAIN IEW m C p Every 30 minutes plus 15 e M V 255 i i ad c 55 ll e r a 21 IDDLEFIELD d ast 21 lif m ntagu ar o M 56 o e m oinotna nas oinotna rn ce a 57 59 m minute peak ia n u on tra de m l 20 66 o 20 OSTETTERr t w r rill Mountain MISSION COLLEGE e ORCHARD 60 77 te H Los Altos 21 mathilda n t 61 g l e Every 30 minutes f a u t o duane d s 255 m o n o issi e d o on a h f t 523 y l View evelyn l k i h a c i l k l 55 880 a l 55 c n in s 40 57 20 r d g k o 52 22 ld u e Every 30 minutes peak only SUNNYVALE a arques a z r 51 522 o te 20 n air 70 f 61 o 53 60 Every 60 minutes plus m s w 71 r 280 59 ka el e ro 251 w 101 b 77
o ry 30 minute peak b u tnarg ab o e Sunnyvale m t d t r reed t BERRYESSA 64 a METRO/AIRPORT a Every 60 minutes 40 on 85 o s n 21 c r springer m s 1s es 70 e y BART 52 a monro SAN JOSE 66 r r r b e t i 22 e ba e remingt on AIRPORT b f l m 77 al m 51 56 h 522 Santa Clarac 25 Every 60 minutes peak only FOOTHILL COLLEGE ol 57 e m 500 523 mckee 255 an 23 ALUM ROCK ga 59 ng fremont 21 i j o el camino real SANTA CLARA dd 61 a t e c
a h k alum rock s 22 522 522 o School trippers ar 60 or 53 s yl n white - kcebnelloh laf CIVIC CENTER ta
e eflow
l n 500 64 e to e a
c n 55 be y n
mas 61 v 523 e 22 julia a o t
en ar 25 t 66 l t r c 522 280 Municipal shuttles 523 e n
e w nta n a 522 t a unny
mary 53
a h s s
56 l 23 s e y 522 r homestead a 22 to c 71 53 60 la s a 53 59 me p ST JAMES ito 57 d 72 VTA light rail a 70 l u 61 SANTA CLARA 77 55 a t saratoga e San Jose la n 22 a a 880 gle c
t a 101 n o y VALLEY FAIR Cupertino l mclaughlin VTA Transit Center k e TC i in 51 k stevens creek 63 25 g 23 523 77 22 23 523 66 imb y s qu m 68 ye 51 ke 26 39 E NZA u m D A 25 280 73 EASTRIDGE ri issi parkmoor senter llo t OLLEGE t 87 C RACE ST ba e o Other Transit Services rn n 55 bo 65 31 v a lli 64 monterey bu les n ie ger eb w nz e 25 uitdal AMIEN 256 p e w ams fr e T f l illi 71 aborn s l m e a 25 a 68 e a ALLEY EDICAL FRUITDALE n h d 25 an V M tully f hr el 39 c CENTER w ipe o ing 61 o Future BART c 101 l 56 ll 56 l wi elta ba e d 287 t 31 s 60 26 72 57 EVERGREEN Caltrain / ACE 87 63 64 COLLEGE h retsehcniw l a n pros i l i pec hamilto n e a t n 71 commuter rail m c 73 bue 56 ol a na 56 68 66 rb MAIN & HALE 51 256 n CURTNER 42 42 ye e naidirem unn g d u elavynnus-agotaras 65 campbell bascom a the village m d s 26 al 72 39 on OWNTOWN AMPBELL 26 85 D C u t e saratoga p r Campbell e natural area e otiuq curtner y 61 26 287 26 INCHESTER hillsdale W senter Route 257 terminates 37 68 77 at Monterey Road and 57 capitol outside Santa Clara County San Martin Avenue CAPITOL 101 hacienda 71 allendale 37 51 hillsdale
llard n o 37 o p m 42 r i anham
n 37 br Morgan Hill Service WEST VALLEY e u r i 68 ede Saratoga c d m amd 64 o i COLLEGE o a r n
asc h e 66
s b g
101 i a 27 n 83 n 61 e OHLONE/CHYNOWETH julian l first y 66 68 s 63 i d r sama r ritan seventh 500 523 o te 85 LOSSOM ILL 64 s d B H 72 65 l sixth 22 522 lli te he e 27 s nn i 27 i 73 ma c f lv n 27 n e i i SNELL r 23 w s l 85 os almade w e second n o gat n af we lbur t os LMADEN n a l 27 A r m 87 ST. JAMES g e o OTTLE k C 1st n a 85 os san fernando t l l 42 e a s r m a r r nt ey blossom hill a 72 p o ad t y er 66 r esa SANTA TERESA i o 3rd nce e 68 v SANTA CLARA eleventh Los Gatos n ia v 101 tenth a d n 266 santa clara lle e
e 6t h l KAISER MEDICAL l r 27 l o m z r s w e o o SJSU a u n 68 64
8th n n r ENTER t
s C e ta 83 64 r SAN ANTONIO 73 c 68 e 65 cottle 266 y 73 t 86 a 522 e 0th t 63 r 1 n 22 e main s a 77 a s camden 63 500 SAN FERNANDO
san carlos 68 DIRIDON CONVENTION s n a w sa CENTER o 66 m n r t o a c 64 h te t re 65 CHILDREN’S 280 s monterey
a montgomery 86 523 DISCOVERY 23 AVILAN G s 101 y a rr n a COLLEGE y h 68 s i 83 d r o lli nnte ma Gilroy Service 85 Downtown San Jose n we lbur n
r m
e o 0 1 2 3 4 mi k 1st n 85 t e a r r r p ey o r y i o 3rd nce
v 101 a
n lle e 6t h r s w a 8th n t a 86 Attachment13.c C AC217
y it Some routes have small routing and rs e e iv s n c frequency changes on Sundays. u u e
r l
e a om eekend inal lan PALO ALTO h W F P 21 66 Services not shown include:
m l m - VTA Express id e Palo Alto 101 b i
d lp a l i ridership goal coverage goal efi t (83% , 17% ) 22 e a - ACE shuttles ld s calaveras t e p m 522 alma a - Hwy 17, MST 55, DB Express r y 47 p n k
h e l
a v l c i t e a r i m b a c VTA Saturday Route Frequencies
i a c t
n f o 1 c o
a r st Milpitas r h e m i ano a f a l f r Alviso forni ver n AC217 li o o
a t 237 680 Rapid: every 15 minutes or s st 59 c le n 66 r g
ca a n landess h i ILPITAS 47 r c e M r LDER 21 40 LOCKHEED MARTIN ORREGAS e better and limited stops B 47 A h ja m e v 59 BART i a a l
AYPOINTE
v n ROSSMAN
i
i l B e C
at
e AKS ey w l Every 15 minutes or better e 40 r t p t r RONSIDES o o O ba cr SAN ANTONIO e g I h f f EAMWOOD LD lafayette s o AIR R 237 F sman O li 71 m ta c k ROPLEY 70 ro m C p Every 20 minutes e OUNTAIN IEW i d M V 55 il e ra c 21 IDDLEFIELD l st 21 ali m tagu d ra fo 56 n m a rn ce M a 57 59 mo e ia n u on tra de m l 66 o OSTETTER t r Every 30 minutes w r rill 21 MISSION COLLEGE ne ORCHARD 60 77 te H 61 Mountain mathilda g l t Los Altos a u e f t o duane d s o n o miss e o io a d f san antonio n h t 523 55 l h evelyn l k y i a c View l i k l a Every 40 - 60 minutes c i l 55 880 n n 40 s 57 r d g k o 22 ld u e a a SUNNYVALE arques z r 522 o te n air 70 61 o f 60 VTA light rail m s w 71 r 59 ka 280 el e ro w b 77
o 101 ry b u m ab VTA Transit Center issi o t 101 e m t t d Sunnyvale t TC e o r n n reed t 64 r grant ERRYESSA v a METRO/AIRPORT a B es 40 on o s bu l i n e 85 21 c r springer m 70 eb w s 1s es e e y p a monro AN OSE 66 r BART e r S J r b e t 68 lf lm i 22 e e a remingt on IRPORT b ba h m A 77 an 56 hr 522 25 oc c c OOTHILL OLLEGE Santa Claraol 101 F C e m 61 523 mckee Other Transit Services 57 an 23 ALUM ROCK ga 21 59 ng fremont di j o el camino real SANTA CLARA d 500 a t he c a k alum522 rock s 22 522 o ar h 60 or s l n a y white in - laf CIVIC CENTER a le a t Future BART e 66 64 m l n e to e
a
55 c n be y 61 500 n mas 523 ba v e 22 ulia a
wolfe j
AIN ALE o t 25 en ar M & H e t l
r t c nn 522 280 u 523 e d n
w nta Caltrain / ACE a 522 t a unny 53
mary
a h s
56 s 23 l s 522 hollenbeck e y m r homestead a 22 to c 71 on 60 la s a commuter rail t 53 me p e i r ST JAMES to e 57 d 72 y a 70 l u 61 SANTA CLARA 77 55 a t saratoga e la n San Jose 22 a a 880 gle c t a 68 n o y l VALLEY FAIR mclaughlin k Cupertino e i 25 in natural area k stevens creek 63 g 23 523 77 22 23 523 66 mb y 68 s qui m ye 39 m e 26 k u ba issi E NZA 25 73 r tt 101 D A EASTRIDGE il outside Santa Clara County e o 280 parkmoor senter lo rn n ACE T v COLLEGE R S bu les b ie 55 o monterey 31 a lli 64 eeb w ng p e er 68 lf lm nz 25 itda AMIEN e a ms fru le T n h willia 25 71 aborn s a e a a hr 25 FRUITDALE n c d VALLEY MEDICAL tully f co el 39 101 ENTER w ipe ing C 61 o 56 l 56 ll l wi elta e 31 d t
s 60 26 72 57 63 EVERGREEN h 64 a in COLLEGE le a l m prospe i ct hamilton n 73 c bue 56 56 ol 71 ba na MAIN & HALE e 68 66 r nn n ye du CURTNER g
u m winchester campbell bascom a the village on 26 d 39 s t al 72 e DOWNTOWN CAMPBELL 26 r u 85 meridian e p y saratoga Campbell curtner e 61 26
quito hillsdale WINCHESTER nte 68 77 se r 57 capitol saratoga-sunnyvale CAPITOL 71 hacienda 101 allendale hillsdale
llard n o o p m r Morgan Hill Service i anham
n br EST ALLEY e W V u r i
68 ede m c d amd 64 o Saratoga i COLLEGE o a r n s a asc h 66 ulian n e irst
b g 66
i n y 27 61 68 s e OHLONE/CHYNOWETH i l d seventh 500 523 r 63 64 o s 72 r amari si th 22 522 e tan lli t 85 LOSSOM ILL 73 nte s d B H an l m e 27 23 he i 27 s c f ilv n second 85 i 27 n NELL e n 101 i S r l we lbur w s s alm e n a w o ato den a 87 T AMES r S . J m t s g f e lo 27 ALMADEN o a
k 1st n g 85 san ernando t COTTLE e a r a r r os 72 p ey o l l m sa r y n d i o blossom hill ta 3r nce ad ter esa SANTA TERESA SANTA CLARA eleventh v e 66 tenth a 101 v n n 68 i santa clara lle a e 6t h d 500 r Los Gatos e
s w l AISER EDICAL l 68 S S a 8th 27 l K M o m 64 n z r e o o
ta u n AN NTONIO 73 n S A r t 73 64 s ENTER e t C r e th c e 522 63 0 cottle 68 r 1 y e a 22 t s 77 a n m a ain 63 500 SAN FERNANDO s camden 68 DIRIDON san carlos s CONVENTION a n ENTER m C w s 66 o a o n 64 h r t ta c t er CHILDREN’S 280 e monterey sa montgomery 523 DISCOVERY 23 GAVILAN s a n y r COLLEGE y r 68 s a i d h r o lli nnte ma Gilroy Service 85 Downtown San Jose n 101 we lbur n
r m
e o
k 1st n 85 t a 0 1 2 3 4 mi e r r r p ey o r y i o 3rd nce
v a 101 n lle e 6t h r 03/24/2017 s w a 8th n t a
t h e 0t r 1 e s a
s
a
m
o
h
t
GAVILAN COLLEGE Attachment C FY18-19 Transit Service Plan FREQUENCY OF SERVICE <15 15 20 30 40-45 60 SERVICE FREQUENCY TABLE minute minute minute minute minute minute 13.c school and express services not shown
WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
AM Peak PM Peak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am BART (Milpitas and Berryessa stations) BART BART BART O Orange Line O O O G Green Line G G G B Blue Line B B B P Purple Line P P P 500 Diridon – BART Rapid 500 500 500 522 El Camino – Alum Rock Rapid 522 522 522 523 Sunnyvale – Stevens Creek – BART Rapid 523 523 523 20 Sunnyvale – Milpitas 20 20 20 21 Middlefield 21 21 21 22 El Camino – Alum Rock 22 22 22 23 Stevens Creek – Alum Rock 23 23 23 25 Story – Willow 25 25 25 25L Williams 25L 25L 25L 26 Tully 26 26 26 26L Curtner – Campbell 26L 26L 26L 27 Blossom Hill – Los Gatos 27 27 27 31 Evergreen College 31 31 31 37 Hillsdale – Hacienda – Pollard 37 37 37 39 Quimby – San Felipe 39 39 39 40 Foothill College – North Bayshore 40 40 40 42 Monterey – Capitol – Evergreen 42 42 42 47 Calaveras 47 47 47 51 Grant – Moffett 51 51 51 51L Saratoga – West Valley College 51L 51L 51L 52 Foothill College – Downtown Mtn View 52 52 52 53 Homestead – Sunnyvale 53 53 53 55 Sunnyvale – Saratoga 55 55 55 56 Wolfe – Hamilton 56 56 56 57 Bowers – Saratoga 57 57 57 59 Monroe – Great America – Alviso 59 59 59 60 Winchester – Airport – Brokaw 60 60 60 61 Taylor – Bascom 61 61 61 61L Berryessa 61L 61L 61L 63 Meridian 63 63 63 64 McKee – Julian 64 64 64 64L Lincoln – Almaden 64L 64L 64L 65 Leigh 65 65 65 66 Oakland – Monterey – Snell 66 66 66 66L Main – Abel 66L 66L 66L 68 Monterey 68 68 68 68L Monterey South County 68L 68L 68L 70 Jackson 70 70 70 70L Flickinger – Morril 70L 70L 70L 71 Piedmont – White 71 71 71 72 McLaughlin 72 72 72 73 Senter 73 73 73 77 King – Lundy 77 77 77 83 Almaden 83 83 83 85 Gilroy 85 85 85 86 Gavilan College 86 86 86 87 Morgan Hill 87 87 87 89 California Ave – VA Hospital 89 89 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am am 1 212 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 12am AM Peak PM Peak Attachment C 13.c MOUNTAIN Old Cisco Great VIEW Ironsides Baypointe Way Alder Mall Milpitas
Tasman Vienna Cropley Whisman BorregasCrossmanFair Oaks Reamwood Lick Mill Champion River Oaks Bayshore/NASA Lockheed Martin Great America Orchard Hostetter
Bonaventura Berryessa Component Penitencia Creek Karina VTA Light Rail System Metro/Airport McKee
Gish O Orange Line Civic Center B Blue Line ALUM Japantown/Ayer ROCK G Green Line St. James P Purple Line Santa Clara Paseo de San Antonio San Y Yellow Line San Jose Fernando Diridon Light Rail Stations Convention Center Race Children’s Park and Ride Lot Discovery Museum Fruitdale Milpitas BART Station Virginia Commuter Bascom EXPRESS SERVICE Rail Tamien Hamilton Curtner Downtown Campbell Capitol
WINCHESTER Branham
Ohlone/Chynoweth
Oakridge SANTA Blossom TERESA Hill ALMADEN Snell Cottle 13.c SERVICE PROFILE Attachment C FY18-19 Transit Service Plan
CLASSES OF SERVICE ANNUAL SERVICE HOURS SERVICE BY DAY BUS SERVICE HOURS BY DAY OF WEEK
4 FY16-17 APPROVED FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) ROUTES FY16-17 APPROVED +EXPRESS FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) Light Rail 169,367 207,124 3 Regular Rail 160,691 205,221 ROUTES 5,157 Special Event Rail 8,676 1,903 hours 4,845 hours 14 ROUTES Bus 1,601,277 1,601,277 3,273 Local Bus 1,454,338 1,515,789 2,844 hours 2,674 23 Special Event Bus 8,676 7,000 hours 2,387 hours ROUTES hours School Bus 17,883 16,000 (55% of (46% of (68% of (55% of Express Bus 120,380 62,488 weekday) weekday) weekday) weekday) WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 381 buses 358 buses 9 Peak Vehicles ROUTES 57 light rail cars 67 light rail cars
VEHICLES IN SERVICE BY HOUR RIDERSHIP–COVERAGE ALLOCATION CONNECTING SERVICE AT BART STATIONS WEEKDAY BUSES IN SERVICE BY HOUR, ESTIMATED LOCAL BUS SERVICE RESOURCES, BY PURPOSE
400 FY16-17 APPROVED FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) FY16-17 (TODAY) 350 E 300 AG E ER G V 250 A O FINAL PLAN (FY18-19) R C 17% E 30% 200 V O C
Buses in Service 150
100
50
70% IP IP H 83% H 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 S S AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM ER ER RID RID
FREQUENT ROUTES 22 El Camino – Santa Clara – Alum Rock 60 Winchester – Airport – Brokaw 70 Jackson 500 Diridon – BART Rapid routes with weekday frequency of every 15 minutes or better all day LIGHT RAIL LIGHT RAIL LIGHT RAIL LIGHT RAIL 23 Stevens Creek – Santa Clara – Alum Rock 61 Taylor – Bascom 72 McLaughlin 522 El Camino – Santa Clara – Alum Rock Rapid ORANGE BLUE PURPLE GREEN LINE LINE LINE LINE 25 Story 64 McKee – Julian 73 Senter 523 Sunnyvale – Stevens Creek – BART Rapid 26 Tully 66 Oakland – Monterey – Snell 77 King – Lundy entire light rail system is frequent all day on weekdays 57 Bowers – Saratoga 68 Monterey Highway 13.d Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes
Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan) Alignment Frequency Span Peak Midday Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Class Span Span Frequency Span Frequency Change Change Change Frequency Frequency Combine with new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to Milpitas BART Station, Metro/Airport LRT Station - Santa Clara Transit 10 Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row and Downtown Campbell; improve weekend See Route 60 Center frequency.
12 Eastridge Transit Center - San Jose Civic Center Discontinue; current riders may use revised Route 61 or Route 77.
13 Ohlone/Chynoweth LRT Station - Almaden/McKean Replace with new Route 83. See Route 83
Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 14 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; reduce 14 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital See Route 85 weekday frequency.
Renumber to Route 87; service retained on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit service 16 Morgan Hill Civic Center - Burnett Avenue See Route 87 can be implemented.
17 Gilroy Transit Center - St. Louise Hospital Discontinue due to low ridership; some riders may use Route 85.
18 Gavilan College - Gilory Transit Center Renumber to Route 86; increase frequency on weekdays. See Route 86
Replace with new Route 85, which would serve Route 19 destinations and other areas of Gilroy; 19 Gilroy Transit Center - Wren and Mantelli See Route 96 decrease weekday frequency. Create new Route 20 that would connect Milpitas BART Station, Mission College, Santa Clara Square and The draft plan proposed the route end at Mountain View, 20 Sunnyvale - North San Jose - Milpitas Downtown Sunnyvale; new Route 20 would provide service to areas currently served during commute New Local 5:30a - 10:00p 15 min 30 min — — — — but in the final plan the route would end in Sunnyvale. periods by parts of Routes 58, 321 and 304. Create new Route 21 that would connect Palo Alto, San Antonio Transit Center, Mountain View, Minor alignment changes to serve San Antonio Circle in 21 Middlefield Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Transit Ctr (Sunday service would only operate between Stanford Shopping New Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 45 min 9:00a - 8:00p 60 min Mountain View and Lytton/Hamilton in Palo Alto (pending Center and Mountain View); new Route 21 would replace current Routes 32 and 35. street improvements).
22 El Camino - Santa Clara - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; increase frequency on Rapid 522 (to be implemented in April 2017). P Frequent 24 hours 15 min 15 min 24 hours 15 min 24 hours 15 min
Final plan would maintain Route 23's current alignment in 23 Stevens Creek - Alum Rock Decrease weekday frequency; modify alignment to serve Stevens Creek Blvd instead of Forest Ave. P P Frequent 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min 6:00a - 1:00a 15 min east San Jose; Sunday frequency would increase to every 15 minutes. Final plan would maintain service to White Road in east 25 Story - Willow - Williams Decrease weekday frequency and increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment near De Anza College. P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 12-24 min 12-24 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 15-60 min San Jose; minor alignment changes through Valley Medical Center. Split into two separate routes. Revised Route 26 would connect West Valley College and Eastridge 26 Tully - Curtner - Campbell Transit Center; frequency would increase on weekdays and weekends; new Route 56 would connect P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 7:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min Lockheed Martin and Tamien Station. Extend to Winchester Transit Center via Los Gatos Boulevard, downtown Los Gatos and Winchester Final plan would maintain service to Knowles/Hacienda 27 Blossom Hill - Los Gatos Boulevard; increase frequency on weekday midday and Saturdays; add extended evening hours on P P P Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 60 min area and downtown Los Gatos; Saturday service would end weekdays and Saturdays. at 9:00p. Modify alignment for more direct service between Evergreen Valley College and Eastridge Transit Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan (parts 31 Evergreen Valley College Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Center. P were covered by Route 76).
San Antonio Shopping Center - Santa Clara Transit 32 Replace with new Route 21. See Route 21 Center
San Antonio Shopping Center - Downtown 34 Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders can use Routes 21 or 40. Mountain View
Stanford Shopping Center - Downtown Mountain 35 Replace with new Route 21. See Route 21 View
37 West Valley College - Capitol Light Rail Station Reduce weekday frequency. P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min — — — — Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan.
Route was proposed to be renumbered to Route 93, but 39 Quimby - San Felipe Decrease peak period frequency. Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min P final plan maintiains current number.
Extend Route 40 along Shoreline Boulevard and Villa Street to connect with Mountain View Transit 40 Foothill College - North Bayshore Local 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 7:00p 45 min 9:00a - 6:00p 45 min Center; increase Saturday and Sunday frequency. P P
42 Kaiser San Jose - Evergreen Valley College Discontinue low ridership segments, reduce weekday frequency; discontinue Saturday service. P P P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min — — — — Route was proposed for elimination in draft plan.
Alum Rock Transit Center - Penitencia Creek Transit 45 Discontinue due to low ridership. Center
1 13.d Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes
Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan) Alignment Frequency Span Peak Midday Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Class Span Span Frequency Span Frequency Change Change Change Frequency Frequency
Scale back to school-oriented service (to be called Route 246) between Milpitas High School and 46 Great Mall Transit Center - Milpitas High School See Route 246 Landess/Yellowstone.
Route would become a two-way loop; increase Sunday frequency; modify alignment to serve 47 Calaveras Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min Modify alignment to serve McCandless Drive. McCandless Drive; add extended evening hours 7 days a week. P P P
48 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. See Route 27
49 Downtown Los Gatos - Winchester LRT Station Replace some segments with revised Route 27; increase frequency on Route 27. See Route 27
New number for Moffett Field to De Anza College portion of current Route 81; decrease midday Extend 60-min segment of route to West Valley College, via 51 Grant - Moffett - Saratoga Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min — — — — frequency; extend route to West Valley College; discontinue Saturday service. P P P Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Saratoga town center.
52 Foothill College - Downtown Mountain View No changes proposed. Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min — — — —
Change alignment to serve Vallco Mall and Santa Clara Transit Ctr instead of West Valley College, which 53 Homestead - Sunnyvale would replace part of current Route 81 (Saturday service to operate between Vallco and Santa Clara P P Local 5:30a - 8:00p 30 min 30 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min — — Modify alignment to serve Scott and Benton in Santa Clara. Transit Ctr); increase frequency on weekdays. Discontinue due to low ridership; add new Rapid 523 service on Mathilda Avenue/De Anza Boulevard 54 Lockheed Martin Transit Center - De Anza College corridor.
Change alignment between Downtown Sunnyvale and Remington Avenue; minor alignment changes in 55 Sunnyvale - De Anza College Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min 8:00a - 8:00p 30 min Lakewood Village; decrease weekday peak period frequency and increase Sunday frequency. P P
Create new Route 56, which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center to Downtown Sunnyvale, 56 Wolfe - Hamilton New Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min Extend route to Tamien station via Hamilton. Vallco Mall, Westgate, and Tamien Station; replaces parts of Routes 26 and 82.
57 Great America - Bowers - Saratoga Increase weekday and Saturday frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days a week. P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20 min 7:30a - 10:00p 30 min Extend weekday service to midnight.
58 West Valley College - Alviso Discontinue; some current riders may use Routes 57, 59, 20 and 26.
Create new Route 59, which would connect Valley Fair, O'Connor Hospital, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Extend weekday service to Valley Fair and O'Connor 59 Monroe - Great America - Alviso Mission College, Alviso and Baypointe Light Rail Station; would cover some segments of Route 58 and New Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 6:30p 60 min Hospital. Route 60. Consolidate with Route 10 to create new Route 60, which would connect Mineta San Jose Airport to 60 Winchester - Airport - BART Milpitas BART Station, Metro light rail station, Santa Clara Caltrain Station, Valley Fair, Santana Row, and P P P Frequent 5:00a - 11:00p 15 min 15min 5:00a - 11:00p 20 min 5:00a - 11:30p 20 min Downtown Campbell; increase weekday and weekend frequency. Change alignment from Mabury Road to Berryessa Road between Berryessa BART Station and Capitol 61 Taylor - Bascom - Berryessa Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 11:00p 20-40 min 7:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min Avenue; increase frequency on weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. P P P
62 Good Samaritan Hospital - Sierra/Piedmont Replace with Route 61. See Route 61
Change southern end from Almaden Expressway/Camden Avenue to Meridian Avenue/Blossom Hill 63 Meridian Local 6:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 8:00a - 7:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min Road; increase weekday midday frequency. P P
Change downtown routing (Julian to 6th/7th and San Fernando); extend route to Camden in Almaden 64 McKee - Lincoln - Almaden Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 7:00a - 11:00p 30 min Extend route to Camden in Almaden Valley. Valley. P P
65 Kooser/Blossom Hill - Downtown San Jose Discontinue segment north of downtown San Jose; reduce frequency. P P Local 6:00a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min — — — — The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 65.
Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station; weekday frequency changes by segment; move to 66 Milpitas - Oakland - Monterey - Snell Frequent 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 6:00a - 12:00a 20 min 10th/11th Streets from 1st Street. P P
Decrease midday frequency south of Santa Teresa Light Rail Station; increase midday frequency north of 68 Monterey - South County Frequent 4:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15-30 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min 5:00a - 12:00a 20 min Santa Teresa light rail station. P Modify alignment to connect to Berryessa BART Station; decrease frequency north of Berryessa BART 70 Jackson - Flickinger - Morrill station; discontinue service between Eastridge Transit Center and Capitol station, some riders in that P P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15-30 min 15-30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20-40 min 6:30a - 10:00p 20-40 min segment may use Routes 71 or 42. Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; decrease weekday peak period service The final plan moves its southern end from Eastridge to 71 Piedmont - White Local 5:30a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min 6:30a - 10:00p 30 min 7:30a - 9:00p 30 min and increase Sunday service; extended to Capitol light rail station. P P Capitol light rail station. Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes 72 McLaughlin Increase frequency on weekday midday and weekends; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. P P Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min to every 30 minutes; change southern end from Capitol light rail station to Monterey & Branham.
2 13.d Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes
Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan) Alignment Frequency Span Peak Midday Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Class Span Span Frequency Span Frequency Change Change Change Frequency Frequency
Change southern end from Capitol Expressway/Snell to Monterey Road/Branham Road; increase Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes 73 Senter Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 7:30a - 11:00p 30 min weekday midday and weekend frequency; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. P P P to every 30 minutes. Change northern end from Great Mall to Milpitas BART Station; change southern end of route to Reduce Sunday daytime frequency from every 20 minutes 77 King - Lundy Eastridge Transit Center via Tully Road rather than Rigoletto Drive; serve Berryessa BART station; Frequent 5:30a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 20 min 6:30a - 11:00p 30 min P P P to every 30 minutes. increase weekday midday and weekend frequencies; add extended evening hours 7 days/week. Replace Moffett Field to De Anza College segment with new Route 51; replace De Anza College to Santa 81 Moffett Field - Downtown San Jose See Routes 51 and 53 Clara Caltrain Station segment with revised Route 53.
82 Westgate - Downtown San Jose Discontinue; some segments of route replaced with Routes 56, 66, and 68. See Route 56
New route based on current Route 13, provided on an interim basis prior to implementation of on- 83 Almaden demand service for Almaden Valley; revised alignment would serve Blossom Hill (Oakridge Mall), P Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min — — — — The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 13. McAbee, and Camden. Was called Route 96 in draft plan; also minor alignment 85 Gilroy New two-way loop route in Gilroy; replaces Routes 14, 17, and 19. New Local 6:30a - 6:30p 60 min 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min 9:00a - 6:00p 60 min changes to facilitate connections with Route 68.
86 Gavilan College Replaces Route 18; increase frequency. P Local 7:00a - 10:00p 30 min 30 min — — — — Was called Route 97 in draft plan.
Draft plan proposed a reduction in service to school- Renumber Route 16 to Route 87, provided on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit 87 Morgan Hill Local peak only 60 min — — — — — oriented trips only. Final plan would maintain current solution can be implemented; no other changes proposed. service until flexible solution can be implemented.
88 Palo Alto VA Hospital - Middlefield/Colorado Scale back to school trips (to be called Route 288) for Gunn High School. See Route 288
89 California Avenue Caltrain - Palo Alto VA Hospital No changes proposed. Local 6:30a - 6:30p 30 min 60 min — — — — The draft plan proposed to discontinue Route 89.
101 Camden/Highway 85 - Palo Alto No changes proposed. Express 2 trips each peak period — — — —
102 South San Jose - Palo Alto No changes proposed. Express 7 trips each peak period — — — —
103 Eastridge Transit Center - Palo Alto No changes proposed. Express 4 trips each peak period — — — —
104 Penitencia Creek Transit Center - Palo Alto Change alignment to serve Milpitas BART Station rather than Great Mall Transit Center. P Express 2 trips each peak period — — — —
Fremont BART - Lockheed Martin Transit Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County; explore options for inter-county 120 Center/Shoreline partnership service with AC Transit.
Gilroy Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit 121 No changes proposed. Express 9 trips each peak period — — — — Center
122 South San Jose - Lockheed Martin Transit Center No changes proposed. Express 1 trip each peak period — — — —
140 Fremont BART Station - Mission College/Montague Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County.
168 Gilroy Transit Center - San Jose Diridon Station No changes proposed. Express 7 trips each peak period — — — —
180 Fremont BART Station - Great Mall - Eastridge Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County.
181 Fremont BART - San Jose Diridon Station Discontinue due to extension of BART to Santa Clara County.
182 Palo Alto - Bailey Road/IBM No changes proposed. Express 1 trip each peak period — — — —
185 Gilroy Caltrain Station - Shoreline - San Antonio No changes proposed. Express 3 trips each peak period — — — —
DASH Shuttle: Diridon Station - Downtown San Jose - 201 Replace with Rapid 500; change alignment to Santa Clara Street. See Route 500 San Jose State University
3 13.d Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes
Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Proposed Change (current service vs. final plan) Alignment Frequency Span Peak Midday Change from Draft Plan to Final Plan Class Span Span Frequency Span Frequency Change Change Change Frequency Frequency
246 Milpitas High School - Yellowstone/Landess School-oriented service (formerly Route 46), based on school bell schedules. Special 1 trip before and 1 trip after school — — — —
247 Milpitas High School - Park Victoria School-oriented service (formerly Route 46/47), based on school bell schedules. Special 1 trip before and 1 trip after school — — — —
251 St. Francis High School - Downtown Mountain View School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only. Special 1 trip after school — — — —
255 Fremont High School - Lakewood Village School-oriented service (formerly Route 55X), based on school bell schedules. Special # of trips varies by school schedule — — — —
Willow Glen High School - Tamien Station - 256 School-oriented service (formerly Route 82), based on school bell schedules. Special # of trips varies by school schedule — — — — Was called Route 282 in draft plan. Monterey/Alma
266 Santa Teresa High School - Bernal Road School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only. Special 1 trip after school — — — —
287 Live Oak High School - Monterey & San Martin School-oriented service, based on school bell schedules; afternoon service only. Special 1 trip after school — — — —
Add one additional trip an hour or two after the afternoon School-oriented service (formerly Route 88), based on school bell schedules, plus one afterschool 288 Gunn High School - North Palo Alto Special 3 trips before and 4 trips after school — — — — bell time to accommodate afterschool activities; modify extracurricular trip; to follow former 88, 88L, 88M alignments. alignment to follow existing route.
304 South San Jose - Sunnyvale Transit Center Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 66, 68 or 20.
Great Mall Transit Center - Lockheed Martin Transit 321 Discontinue due to low ridership; some current riders may use Routes 20, 59, or Orange line. Center
Upgrade to Rapid 523 and extend western end to Lockheed Martin Transit Center and eastern end to 323 De Anza College - Downtown San Jose See Route 523 Berryessa BART Station; increase Sunday frequency.
Almaden/Via Valiente - Lockheed Martin Transit 328 Discontinue due to low ridership. Center
330 Almaden/Via Valiente - Tasman Drive Discontinue due to low ridership.
Replaces DASH shuttle; 7-day a week service; connects Diridon Station to downtown San Jose, San Jose 500 Diridon - Berryessa BART Rapid New Rapid 4:00a - 1:30a 10 min 15 min 6:00a - 1:30a 20 min 8:00a - 1:30a 20 min Add additional stop at Almaden Boulevard. State University, and Berryessa BART Station. Reduce frequency of some weekend early morning and Increase weekday frequency (to be implemented in April 2017); add extended evening hours 7 522 Palo Alto Transit Center - Eastridge Transit Center Rapid 5:00a - 11:00p 12 min 12 min 6:00a - 11:00p 15 min 6:00a - 10:00p 15 min evening service from every 15 minutes to every 20 minutes; days/week; start earlier AM service on weekends. P P extend Sunday service to 10 pm. Create new Route 523 which would connect Lockheed Martin Transit Center, Downtown Sunnyvale, De Lockheed Martin Transit Center - Berryessa BART 523 Anza College, Vallco, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Downtown San Jose, Mexican Heritage Plaza and New Rapid 5:00a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 6:00a - 10:30p 15 min 7:00a - 10:00p 15 min Extend Sunday service to 10 pm. Station Berryessa BART Station. Change name to Green Line. Change northern end to Old Ironsides Light Rail Station; increase weekday Green Old Ironsides Station - Winchester Station Light Rail 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min 6:30a - 12:00a 30 min frequency to 15 minutes all day. P P
Blue Alum Rock Transit Center - Santa Teresa Station Change name to Blue Line. Light Rail 4:30a - 1:00a 15 min 15 min 5:00a - 1:00a 15 min 5:00a - 12:00a 15 min
Purple Almaden Station - Ohlone/Chynoweth Station Change name to Purple Line. Light Rail 5:30a - 10:30p 15 min 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min 8:00a - 10:00p 15 min
Mountain View Transit Center - Alum Rock Transit Create new Orange Line to connect Downtown Mountain View with Alum Rock Transit Center; operate Orange New Light Rail 5:00a - 11:30p 15 min 15 min 6:30a - 11:30p 30 min 7:00a - 11:30p 30 min Center at 15-minute frequency all day on weekdays.
Downtown San Jose - Santa Teresa Station Express Change name to Yellow Line. Change northern end from Baypointe Light Rail Station to St. James Light Yellow Light Rail 5 trips each peak period — — — — Service Rail Station; increase peak period span of service. P P
4 13.d Attachment D - Route-by-Route List of Changes
Routes Currently Serving City Routes to Serve City in Proposed Plan
Campbell 26, 27, 37, 48, 49, 60, 61, 62, 65, 82, 101, 328, 330, Green 26, 27, 37, 56, 60, 61, 65, 101, Green
Cupertino 23, 25, 26, 53, 54, 55, 81, 101, 182, 323 23, 25, 26, 51, 53, 55, 56, 101, 182, 523
Gilroy 14, 17, 18, 19, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 85, 86, 121, 168, 185
Los Altos 22, 40, 52, 81, 522 22, 40, 51, 52, 522
Los Altos Hills 40, 52 40, 52
Los Gatos 27, 48, 49 27
Milpitas 46, 47, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 140, 180, 181, 321, 330, Blue 20, 47, 60, 66, 70, 71, 77, 104, 246, 247, Blue, Orange
Monte Sereno 48 27
Morgan Hill 16, 68, 121, 168, 185 68, 87, 121, 168, 185
Mountain View 22, 32, 34, 35, 40, 52, 81, 120, 185, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 40, 51, 52, 185, 251, 522, Orange
Palo Alto 22, 35, 88, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 522 21, 22, 89, 102, 103, 104, 182, 288, 522
10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 45, 49, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, 101, 102, 103, 104, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 42, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 83, 101, 102, 103, 104, 122, 168, 182, San Jose 122, 140, 168, 180, 181, 182, 185, 201 DASH, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Blue, Green, Purple, Yellow 185, 201 DASH, 266, 282, 500, 522, 523, Blue, Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow
Santa Clara 10, 22, 23, 32, 55, 57, 58, 60, 81, 121, 140, 304, 321, 323, 328, 330, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 23, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 121, 522, 523, Green, Orange
Saratoga 26, 37, 53, 57, 58 26, 37, 51, 53, 56, 57
Sunnyvale 22, 26, 32, 53, 54, 55, 120, 121, 122, 304, 321, 328, 522, Green 20, 21, 22, 26, 53, 55, 56, 255, 522, 523, Green, Orange
5 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR THEMES FROM DRAFT PLAN FEEDBACK
This attachment describes the major changes in the transit service plan between the draft and final versions. Following the release of the draft transit service plan VTA staff collected over 5,000 points of feedback during January and February 2017. Feedback came from community members, city/town staff, elected officials, city/town councils, community organizations, business associations, and other institutions. Without exception, every change proposed by the draft plan generated some feedback. However, the quantity of feedback overwhelmingly concerned a small subset of topics, and this attachment discusses each of these major topics. As such, this section discusses the major themes of feedback in no particular order, and is not meant to represent the entirety of feedback received, which is more fully discussed in the public outreach attachment.
DOWNTOWN SARATOGA (ROUTE 53) The draft plan proposed to discontinue service along Saratoga-Sunnyvale, to Saratoga’s downtown, and to West Valley College as Route 53’s coverage resources were reallocated to more productive service. Staff received comments from staff at the City of Saratoga, a letter from the Saratoga mayor and council, and several community members expressing concern over the loss of service, including for senior to access social services near De Anza. The City requested service at a 30-minute frequency along the Sunnyvale-Saratoga corridor.
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data for the segment of Route 53 between De Anza and West Valley College. This segment has approximately 195 weekday boardings as shown in the map at right. While the street grid and land use densities along this segment are not ideal for transit, the area does exhibit some demand for service that justifies some fixed route service. Staff studied two options to continue service in the final plan: by extending one of either Route 51 or Route 55 (both proposed to end at De Anza College under the draft plan) south to West Valley College via downtown. The length of this segment could be served at a 60-minute frequency with one bus; allocating more resources along this area would not be justified based on ridership demand. Due to the its proposed turnaround at the large block of Stelling, Stevens Creek, De Anza, and McClellan, it would not be operationally feasible to extend Route 55. Route 51, however, could be extended without operational issues. Based on the demand for service and the desire to provide service to downtown Saratoga and West Valley College, the final plan includes an extension of Route 51 to West Valley College via downtown Saratoga, at a 60-minute frequency on weekdays.
1 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
SAN JOSE LEIGH AVENUE (ROUTE 65) Staff received many comments from community members and San Jose State University, concerned about the loss of Route 65 service, primarily the core segment along Leigh Avenue, Camden Avenue, and Parkmoor/Moorpark Avenues in San Jose (see map below). San Jose State University expressed concern about the loss of service between this area and their campus. Route 65 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service. A smaller number of community members also expressed a concern over the loss of service to a community center at Empire and 6th/7th streets in San Jose and also access to San Jose City College.
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff categorized all the feedback on Route 65; the area of most concern is between Lincoln/Parkmoor in the north and Camden/Blossom Hill in the south (see map at right). VTA currently provides service along three parallel north-south corridors in the area as listed below. These corridors are ½-mile apart for much of their length, then increasing to over a mile apart at their southern end. The draft plan proposed consolidating routes and discontinuing the least productive of them, Route 65. . Route 61 (Bascom): 19 boardings per service hour . Route 62 (Bascom): 18 boardings per service hour . Route 63 (Meridian): 18 boardings per service hour . Route 65 (Leigh): 16 boardings per service hour. Staff gathered ridership data on Route 65, which indicates that 78% of the route’s ridership activity occurs on the segment between downtown and the southern end at Blossom Hill Road. This is the segment that provides connections to SJSU and San Jose City College, expressed as a concern from the community. Staff analyzed various options to restore service for this market. The final plan includes the addition of Route 65 service at a 60-minute frequency (less service than today’s 45-minute frequency), which would operate between South San Jose and downtown San Jose. The community center on Empire at 6th/7th Streets would no longer have front-door service. However, Frequent Route 66 would provide new service on 10th/11th Streets, (½ to ⅓-mile to the east of the community center), and Frequent Route 64 would provide service on Julian Street at 6th & 7th streets (⅓-mile south of the community center). Staff analyzed options to modify the alignment of other routes in the area to provide service closer to the community center, but could not develop an option that would meet VTA’s board-adopted productivity standards.
2 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
LOS GATOS TOWN CENTER AND HACIENDA/KNOWLES AREA (ROUTES 48, 49, 27) Staff received comments and letters from community members, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Campbell, and El Camino Hospital Los Gatos, all concerned about the alignment of the proposed Route 27; specifically, the lack of service to downtown Los Gatos (including Los Gatos High) and the lack of service to the neighborhood near Knowles Drive, Hacienda Avenue, and Burrows Road in Los Gatos and Campbell (including El Camino Hospital Los Gatos, see map below).
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data on Route 48, which currently provides service to the Hacienda/Knowles area, and on Route 49, which currently provides service to downtown Los Gatos. In addition, staff conducted on-site field visits to assess the area’s suitability for transit service. . The segment of Winchester Boulevard between Knowles Drive and Hacienda Avenue is adjacent to a rail corridor and it would not be possible to place bus stops on the east side of the street. As such, this segment is not ideal for transit service as proposed by the draft plan’s Route 27. . The Knowles/Hacienda/Burrows deviation on today’s Route 48 has 43 weekday boardings (about 10 of which are at the hospital itself). . Los Gatos downtown has 36 weekday boardings on Route 49 and 50 weekday boardings on Route 48. Of these boardings, 25 are in front of Los Gatos High School, which suggests some demand for school service. Based on the ridership demand in both areas, the alignment of the Route 27 has been modified in the final plan to serve both downtown Los Gatos and the Hacienda/Knowles neighborhood (including El Camino Hospital Los Gatos), as shown in the map at right.
RAPID 500 BETWEEN DIRIDON, DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE, BERRYESSA BART Staff received many comments from community members and organizations concerned about the proposal to eliminate the DASH shuttle and introduce a new Rapid 500 route. DASH offers free-fare service timed to meet trains at Diridon Station on weekdays, operating in a one-way loop through downtown San Jose. The route carries about 1,000 boardings per day, and VTA received an operating subsidy from both SJSU ($55,000) and from MTC’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA, $400,000 to $800,000). Interested groups included riders of today’s DASH, the City of San Jose, the Downtown Association, and SJSU, who expressed concerns regarding: The proposed alignment and stops of the Rapid 500. The proposed Rapid 500 would travel along Santa Clara in both directions between Diridon Station and 10th/11th Streets, and would no longer travel along San Fernando or San Carlos (see map below). Commenters requested Rapid 500 travel along San Fernando to provide front-door service to SJSU and employers such as Adobe. The loss of a free-fare downtown route. The Rapid 500 would incur a standard fare, therefore downtown San Jose would lose its free-fare route.
3 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
STAFF ANALYSIS The DASH’s primary market is connections between Diridon and SJSU/City Hall. As shown in the map above, 78% of the route’s boardings occur at Diridon Station or at the stops on 4th Street adjacent to SJSU. Alignment. The Rapid 500 would provide an improved first/last-mile connection for Diridon Station and Berryessa BART Station, integrating downtown San Jose into the regional transit network with frequent and rapid service (buses scheduled to meet trains at both stations). An industry best practice in downtown transit service is for routes to converge onto a single downtown street to provide a consolidated corridor where riders can walk to for all transit services. In San Jose, Santa Clara Street would be the transit corridor for east-west routes (1st/2nd streets for north- south routes), providing a single place to catch three Rapid routes and six Frequent routes going east-west. A downtown rider could walk to Santa Clara to catch one of the many routes heading to Diridon or Berryessa BART and benefit from a bus coming at least every two minutes. If the Rapid 500 were on another street, downtown users would have to consult a schedule to decide where to walk and the benefit of combined frequency would be lost, which would make transit more difficult to use, particularly for visitors and those unfamiliar with our transit system. In addition, there will be an abundance of frequent services to provide circulation throughout downtown, including light rail service between Diridon and downtown stations every 15 minutes and bus routes on San Fernando in front of SJSU (Route 63 every 30 minutes and Route 65 every 60 minutes). Finally, the alignment is the recommended alignment from two planning consultants who independently conducted a study of downtown transit service and made recommendations for the future of DASH (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and Jarrett Walker + Associates). Other significant improvements of the Rapid 500 over the current DASH service include: . Additional regional connections at Berryessa BART station (DASH serves Diridon only) . Expanded service span (4:00 am – 1:30 am, compared to 6:30 am – 9:30 pm on DASH) . Addition of weekend service on both Saturday and Sunday (no weekend service on DASH) For these reasons, no changes are proposed to the alignment of the Rapid 500 in the final transit service plan.
4 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Stop distance. The Rapid 500 proposal includes stops on Santa Clara Street at 1st/2nd Street and 6th Street. The community’s concerns are also related to the increased distance of service to major destinations/employers such as Adobe and SJSU, which currently have closer service because the DASH operates in a one-way loop along San Fernando and San Carlos. The Rapid 500 stop closest to the University would be at Santa Clara/6th, one block from campus. Staff met with student representatives and staff at SJSU and learned that safety of the walk (mostly at night) was the primary concern, not the extra block of walking distance. Many students currently make this walk now to get to buses on Santa Clara Street (Route 22, 522, etc.); others walk 2-3 blocks to 1st/2nd Streets to access light rail. Staff investigated the potential to add stops to better serve important destinations and employers, such as Adobe. The final plan includes the addition of a Rapid 500 stop at Santa Clara/Almaden Boulevard to provide direct service to downtown destinations and important employers such as Adobe. Free fare. The conversion of the DASH to the Rapid 500 represents a loss of downtown’s free-fare route, as the Rapid 500 as proposed would be integrated into the overall transit network and riders would pay a standard fare. However, most Rapid 500 riders would still not incur a fare at boarding: . SJSU students and staff ride VTA free as EcoPass participants . Adobe and many other downtown employees ride VTA free as EcoPass participants . Caltrain riders with a 2-zone or higher pass ride VTA free . ACE riders with a monthly pass ride VTA free Staff are also studying the potential to offer free VTA-to-VTA transfers as part of the comprehensive fare study. As such, no changes are proposed to the Rapid 500’s standard fare. Ridership projection and impact on operating subsidies. VTA’s travel demand model confirms the importance of Rapid 500’s key connections to Diridon, downtown, and BART, projecting that the route will attract well over 5,000 additional daily riders. Staff will continue to seek a TFCA operating subsidy from MTC, and believe the additional regional rail connections at Berryessa BART station will improve the route’s eligibility for the grant resources.
FREMONT EXPRESS ROUTES 120 AND 181 VTA operates four Express routes between locations in Santa Clara County and the end-of-line BART station in Fremont to provide connections to the regional transit network. By bringing regional BART service to our county with the BART extension project, it would no longer be necessary to operate Express service into Alameda County to provide regional connections, as these regional connections would be made here at the new BART stations. As such, the draft plan follows the established assumptions from the BART extension project that VTA’s transit network would no longer include Express service into Alameda County. However, staff received a large volume of comments from the community (including a letter from employers in the Lockheed Martin area) and Alameda County residents (a petition from Express 120 riders) concerned about the impacts of losing two of these routes, VTA Express 181 and 120. VTA Express 181 currently provides all-day frequent service in both directions between Fremont BART and downtown San Jose, largely used by San Jose State University students and by some downtown employees. VTA Express 120 provides six AM and six PM one-way trips between Fremont BART and Lockheed Martin for area employees.
STAFF ANALYSIS The BART extension and VTA planning studies (including the Berryessa Connector Study, the BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension FTA New Starts submittal, the BRT Strategic Plan, and the BART Transit Integration Plan) all assumed that once BART service opens at Milpitas and Berryessa, the four Alameda County Express routes would be discontinued and the resources used for regional connections at the two new BART stations. The draft plan accordingly used these resources to provide bus service to the two new BART stations. While there has been a
5 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan longstanding service precedent set by these routes (Express 120 and 181 have been operating since 1981), they exist solely for providing connections to the regional transit network. Many of these riders will have better service with BART coming all the way into Milpitas and San Jose; these riders would remain on BART into the county and then make their last-mile connections via timed and frequent light rail and bus connections to job centers. Express 181 riders going to downtown San Jose would benefit from a BART ride into the county and a fast and direct connection into downtown (including a stop one block away from SJSU) that would reduce their travel time by 25% (see travel time comparison below). These riders would pay a higher BART fare.
Travel Time Comparison from Fremont to Downtown San Jose (2nd & Santa Clara) Today Final Plan
19 min on BART 48 min on VTA Express 181 4 min average transfer time 13 min on Rapid 500 48 min total trip time 36 min total trip time
Express 120 riders will have the option of a BART ride to Milpitas station and a direct connection to Lockheed Martin on the new Orange light rail line. However, many of today’s Express 120 riders are Alameda County residents who aren’t using BART at all, and either live near (or drive to) an Express 120 stop in Fremont; these riders would have to use BART for service to Milpitas where they can make the Orange line connection. Some riders may not find the new BART + Orange line trip attractive, as the new trip would not be as fast as today’s Express 120. While VTA’s mission (and funding structure) does not include the objective of providing service for Alameda County residents, there may be a potential to introduce a new inter-county partnership service between Alameda County and Lockheed Martin. VTA has begun discussions with AC Transit to explore options to partner (such as a limited-stop extension of AC Transit Route 217 from Milpitas BART to Lockheed Martin, or an inter- county premium service like the Highway 17 Express) that may serve such a market while respecting each agency’s mission and service area. AC Transit is beginning a comprehensive study of their transit network in Fremont, which presents an excellent opportunity to study the Fremont-Lockheed Martin demand and explore options to maintain this service. VTA staff will coordinate with AC Transit staff during the study and present partnership service strategies that are developed to the VTA Board for consideration. No changes are proposed to the plan to discontinue VTA Express routes into Alameda County, though VTA is exploring the potential for an inter-county partnership service.
PALO ALTO ROUTE 88 Staff received many comments from the community, Palo Alto city staff, the Gunn High School PTSA, the school district, and the Palo Alto City Council, expressing concern regarding Route 88 service. Route 88 currently provides service between the Veteran’s Hospital and midtown Palo Alto, via Gunn High School, Arastradero, Charleston, Fabian, and Louis (see map at right). The route was designed in collaboration with the Gunn High School PTSA during VTA’s service redesign project in 2008. The route was primarily designed to serve Gunn High School students, and has three service patterns to serve the various neighborhoods where students live (alternate alignments 88, 88L, and 88M). The draft plan proposed scaling back the route to focus exclusively on school service renamed as Routes 288, 288L, and 288M. To better understand community concerns, staff met with the Gunn High School PTSA, discussed the proposal at the
6 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Palo Alto City Council, conducted several meetings with city staff, hosted a public meeting in Palo Alto, and conferred with community leaders on several occasions. The community’s primary concerns regarding the draft plan’s proposal for Route 288 are: The loss of service during the weekday midday period for student trips. The loss of service during the several hours following Gunn’s afternoon bell times for student trips, to accommodate students’ extracurricular activities in the afternoon. The loss of all-day service (outside of school bell times) for non-student (community) trips. A general desire to increase transit service along the Arastradero/Charleston corridor for all types of trips, particularly given the forthcoming complete streets improvements along the corridor.
STAFF ANALYSIS Midday student trips. Staff gathered ridership data for Route 88 trips throughout the day to assess the demand for midday trips at Gunn High School. The chart below shows each trip’s average number of boardings on a typical weekday at the two stops used by Gunn High School students, illustrating the demand from Gunn High School throughout the day. As shown, the midday trips (highlighted in the red box) have very little activity, averaging less than one boarding per trip. Despite the desire for students to have a transit option for midday trips to and from the school, ridership data demonstrates that demand for such trips is very low. The insufficient demand for midday school trips does not justify adding midday service to the proposed Route 288. Route 88 Northbound Average Daily Boardings at Gunn High School Stops
50 midday trips school bell trips 40 30.1 29.0 30 27.8
20
10 5.4 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.0 1.9 0 7:14 8:10 8:55 9:55 11:00 12:00 1:05 2:05 3:03 3:05 3:07 3:10 4:10 5:15 6:15 AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM 88M 88L 88
7 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Afternoon school trips for extracurricular activities. Staff consulted ridership data to assess the demand for afternoon school trips. On a typical school day, VTA provides three northbound school trips timed to the afternoon bell schedule, departing just a few minutes apart from each other (trips in the green box in the chart above). Each of the trips follows a unique alignment to take students to different areas of Palo Alto. These trips are productive and carry about 30 students each. However, there is very low demand for each of the subsequent afternoon trips (at hourly intervals after the bell time), with each trip carrying an average of four riders. Despite the desire for multiple afterschool trips to serve students’ extracurricular activity needs, ridership data demonstrates that demand for these trips is very low and would not justify more than one extra trip. In order to support afterschool activities, the final plan includes the addition of one afternoon school trip (subject to productivity minimums) scheduled to meet extracurricular activity needs of some students. Schedule and alignment to be determined in coordination with the community. This added trip will be in addition to the 3 AM and 3 PM school trips timed to the bell schedule. All-day service for (non-school) community trips. Although designed primarily to serve school trips, Route 88 does provide transit service for the general community, including Stevenson House, Abilities United, and the Mitchell Park Library. Staff consulted ridership data to determine the level of demand for non-school trips. As shown by the graph below, activity on non-school trips is quite low, averaging less than six riders per trip. The low demand for service is due to route’s design to focus on school trips, as the route doesn’t offer many connections to places people want to go. Route 35, for example, is considerably more popular for residents of Stevenson House because it offers a connection to downtown Palo Alto, San Antonio Center, and Midtown Shopping Center, in addition to many transit connections. The low demand for non-school community trips does not justify adding all- day service to the proposed Route 288.
Route 88 Average Daily Boardings, All Stops Northbound Trips Southbound Trips school bell trips school bell trips 50 40 40 36 30 32 31 30 24
20 11 11 10 8 9 8 11 7 5 6 7 10 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 4 0 6:32 AM 7:14 AM 7:36 AM 7:44 AM 7:49 AM 8:10 AM 8:20 AM 8:55 AM 9:33 AM 9:55 AM 1:05 PM 1:28 PM 2:05 PM 2:28 PM 3:03 PM 3:05 PM 3:07 PM 3:10 PM 3:35 PM 4:10 PM 4:35 PM 5:15 PM 5:40 PM 6:15 PM 10:17 AM 11:00 AM 11:23 AM 12:00 PM 12:23 PM Community desire to increase transit service in this market. While the low demand for transit service exhibited by the Route 88 market doesn’t meet VTA’s regional minimum standard for VTA fixed route service at this time, there is a community need and desire to provide additional transit service to the areas currently served by the route. In fact, the Charleston/Arastradero corridor is slated to receive complete streets improvements soon to improve bicycle/pedestrian safety, give a corridor a sense of place, and provide sustainable transportation options. These improvements to the corridor’s pedestrian environment, coupled with increases in land use densities, could increase the demand for transit service in the future to a level that would warrant VTA fixed route service. In the meantime, staff have been in discussions with City of Palo Alto staff to discuss alternative mobility solutions for this market, including the potential for community service provided by the city’s municipal shuttle program. VTA staff will continue to support the coordination of community-focused municipal shuttle programs throughout the county with VTA’s regionally-focused fixed route service. By coordinating services, residents can enjoy the benefits of VTA’s regional service along productive transit corridors as well as greater mobility coverage that only local services can provide. While the low demand for service exhibited by Route 88’s market doesn’t justify VTA fixed route service
8 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan at this time, VTA staff are in discussions with the local community and city staff to explore the potential for city shuttles to serve this market.
PALO ALTO ROUTE 89 Staff received many comments from the community (including a letter from Stanford Research Park) concerning the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 89 service in Palo Alto. Route 89 currently provides service between the California Avenue Caltrain station and the Palo Alto Veteran’s Hospital, via the Stanford Research Park employment center. Route 89 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented services. The feedback received expressed concern over the loss of transit service to the jobs at Stanford Research Park and the services at the Veteran’s Hospital, two regionally-important destinations that warrant VTA service.
STAFF ANALYSIS The Stanford Research Park and the Veteran’s Hospital are important regional destinations. In addition, Caltrain is planning to increase the level of Caltrain service to California Avenue Caltrain station in April 2017, which would increase the number of transit connections at the station. Staff gathered service performance data to assess the area’s demand for service and the route’s comparative performance amongst the routes in the area. Both Route 88 and Route 89 serve the VA hospital, though Route 89 has much higher productivity, particularly during the peak period. Route 89 would be the better candidate to add service to this market in the final plan, given its better productivity and service to the Stanford Research Park. Given the regional importance of the Veteran’s Hospital and Stanford Research Park, along with comparatively high productivity of existing service, service for this market is justified and Route 89 has been added back into the final plan. Route Performance Measures (Weekday FY16)
Route 89 Route 88 Route 35 Route 22 Route 522
Boardings per Revenue Hour 19.9 15.0 15.8 32.1 24.8
Rank Among VTA Local Routes 28th of 56 48th of 56 43rd of 56 2nd of 56 13th of 56
SAN JOSE EAST HILLS ROUTE 45 Staff received many comments from the community concerning the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 45 service in San Jose’s East Hills. Route 45 currently provides hourly weekday-only service between the Penitencia light rail station and the Alum Rock transit center as shown in the map below. Route 45 was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented services. The feedback received primarily expressed concern over the loss of transit service to the Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility on Kirk Avenue at Alum Rock Avenue, served exclusively by Route 45. A smaller number of comments concerned the loss of service for the greater areas east of White Road.
STAFF ANALYSIS After discussing service in the area with community members at the VTA-hosted draft plan feedback meeting in East San Jose in February, staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for transit service along Route 45. Ridership activity is very low at stops along Route 45, particularly the segment east of White Road (the segment that would lose service with the elimination of Route 45), as shown on the map at right. On an average weekday, only 69
9 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan boardings occur in this area (about 2 boardings per service hour), which explains why Route 45 is not productive. Based on the low demand for service in the area, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue Route 45. Staff also met with leadership at the veterans housing facility to discuss the patrons’ transportation needs. While Route 45 service meets some of their transportation needs, the facility may be better served with a more flexible mobility solution. Due to low ridership demand, no changes are proposed to the draft plan proposal to discontinue Route 45. However, staff is proposing, and is in discussion with the facility’s director to discuss, providing a van or other vehicle to the facility so they may provide their own transportation.
SAN JOSE ROUTE 10 AIRPORT FLYER Staff received many comments and letters expressing concern regarding the changes proposed to Route 10 Airport Flyer. VTA and the San Jose International Airport partner to offer the Route 10 Airport Flyer, between Santa Clara Caltrain, the airport, and light rail on North First Street (Metro/Airport station). The draft plan proposed to maintain the route’s current alignment as it is today, with the following additions (see map below): . Extend west end to serve Winchester corridor, end at Winchester light rail station . Extend east end to serve Brokaw and Lundy corridors, end at Milpitas BART . Renumber to Frequent Route 60 . Convert to a regular fare, except boardings at the airport terminals would be fare-free While the community expressed overwhelming support for the concept to extend the route for new connections, they expressed concern regarding the transition to a regular-fare route.
STAFF ANALYSIS VTA operates Route 10 through an agreement with the City of San Jose, with free service to riders. San Jose pays VTA approximately $700,000 annually as part of this agreement. The amount used to be as much as $1.2 million but was reduced due to city financial difficulties in 2012. The agreement between VTA and San Jose has been in place since 1998, when as part of mitigation for airport expansion, an option for free transit was required. VTA will continue to provide free service to passengers boarding the new Route 60 at the airport as part of service plan and no changes to the financial terms of the cooperative agreement between San Jose and VTA are proposed. The agreement will need to be revised to address the new Route 60 service.
10 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
VTA will also continue to equip buses serving the airport with interior luggage racks. We will work with the airport on marketing the new Route 60 to passengers as an airport connector with improved connections and the bus headsign will inform passengers that Line 60 provides airport service. VTA staff met with airport staff to discuss the proposed service change. We believe the new connections provided by the route, including a direct connection to BART, will lead to increased ridership at the airport. We received comments requesting that free fares also be maintained for passengers boarding at the LRT Metro Station stop and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. The current fare policy proposal also under review would allow free transfers for Clipper card holders. Also, airport employees would ride free with their EcoPass. Thus, the only group of Route 10 riders that would be required to pay an additional fare under the new Route 60 are cash riders transferring to Route 60 from light rail or Caltrain. These are mostly one-time riders. No changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to upgrade Route 10 to Frequent Route 60 with fare-free boardings at the airport terminals. VTA will continue to equip airport buses with luggage racks, will work with airport staff on branding and marketing the new route, and the headsign on Route 60 vehicles will advertise service to the airport.
CAMPBELL/SAN JOSE HAMILTON CORRIDOR (ROUTES 82 AND 56) The draft plan proposed to discontinue service along the Hamilton corridor east of Winchester due to low ridership, proposing instead to turn the route (Route 56 in the draft plan) south at Winchester to provide a new connection to the Winchester light rail station. Staff received many comments from community members expressing concern over the loss of service along the eastern end of the Hamilton corridor and suggesting the new connection to Winchester station would not be valuable.
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service along the Hamilton corridor east of Winchester and found there is fair ridership demand, with 154 boardings per weekday among the stops. Given the demonstrated demand for service, staff explored several alternatives to retain service along the entire Hamilton corridor. The alternative with the highest potential ridership among the feasible options is similar to today’s Route 82 service along Hamilton, Pine, Newport, and Minnesota to Tamien station. The final plan includes an extension of Route 56 to provide service along the Hamilton corridor and a connection at Tamien station.
11 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
GILROY Staff received many comments and letters from community members, Gilroy city staff, the county executive, county staff, and other organizations expressing concern over the draft plan’s proposed service in Gilroy. The primary concerns were: Loss of service to a low income community in the San Ysidro Park area, currently served by Route 17. Loss of service to the county’s Social Services office at Tomkins Court, also currently served by Route 17. Increased reliance on transfers and the fare (transfer penalty) impact throughout the county. Reduction of Route 68 midday service. Poor pedestrian environment, particularly for connections to/from and along Route 68. The draft plan proposed consolidating three of Gilroy’s four community routes into one two-way loop route that would serve the highest ridership parts of Gilroy (see map at right). As such, the proposed two-way route would maintain service for nearly all riders on the existing routes, plus offer new direct east-west connections across Gilroy. The areas that would lose service under the draft plan’s proposed route are the San Ysidro Park area () and the Tomkins Court deviation (), both served by Route 17 today.
STAFF ANALYSIS San Ysidro Park. Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service in the area. As shown along the San Ysidro Park area of Route 17 (in red on the map), ridership is very low. The total number of boardings across the stops in the area is 8 per weekday (4 daily riders making a roundtrip). While the area may be a community of concern, almost none of the residents are riding Route 17 today. Route 17 has the lowest productivity among all VTA’s routes, with just 8.1 boardings per weekday, 3.3 per Saturday, and 2.9 per Sunday. Contrast the low demand with Route 68 on Monterey Road (orange dots), where the stops in the area have 195 daily boardings (98 daily riders making a round trip). The high ridership on Monterey suggests that perhaps many of the residents of the San Ysidro Park area are walking to Monterey Road (¼ to ½-mile walk) because Route 68 is more useful for their needs (better frequency and it goes more places). Recognizing the desire to provide some coverage service to the area, staff attempted to come up with a modified alignment for Gilroy service that would serve San Ysidro Park. However, none of the options were feasible because they would either add resources beyond justifiable levels, compromise the rest of the route’s design, and/or eliminate service to more productive areas of Gilroy. Due to very low ridership, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue service to the San Ysidro Park area. Social Services at Tomkins Court. Route 17 currently provides service to the Santa Clara County Social Services offices on Tomkins Court; the draft plan proposed to discontinue service to this location, as the office’s isolated location makes it nearly impossible to serve well and ridership is very low. Staff assessed ridership data confirmed ridership at this location is very low; the stop has just 10 weekday boardings (5 riders making a roundtrip). The stop has always had very low ridership, and VTA staff have collaborated with Social Services staff since the facility opened at the location to try and boost ridership. Strategies included redesigning the alignment of the route to go different places and offer a direct connection with Route 68, direct marketing and promotions, and even offering free transit rides for a month. None of the strategies resulted in any increased transit usage at the stop. Unfortunately, this important office is in an area that is not transit-supportive and is not possible to serve well with fixed route transit. Also, as was the case for the residents of the San Ysidro Park area, there is evidence that many patrons of the Social Services office are walking to/from Monterey Road to ride Route 68 (better frequency and it goes more places). Due to its location in an area that is not transit-supportive and therefore demonstrates very low demand for service, no changes are proposed to the draft plan’s proposal to discontinue service to the area.
12 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Increased transfers and fare impacts. Although the proposed network for Gilroy would not impact transfers, the proposed network design elsewhere relies on transfers in order to expand transit access and mobility. As such, staff is studying VTA’s fare structure and will develop a revised fare structure to complement the new transit network. Being studied is a revision to VTA’s transfer policy that allows riders free transfers for 90-minutes with a Clipper card. Staff is studying the potential to revise VTA’s fare structure to offer free transfers with a Clipper card. Reduction in Route 68 midday service. The draft plan included a reduction in midday service frequency on Route 68, from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes. Due to operational constraints of operating the inner segment of Route 68 (between downtown San Jose and Santa Teresa station) at a 15-minute midday frequency, the only feasible options for the outer portion of the route (between Santa Teresa Station to Gilroy) would be the same frequency (every 15 minutes) or half the frequency (every 30 minutes). While it is not possible to propose service every 15 minutes on the outer segment due to limited resources in the service hours-neutral final plan, the corridor does demonstrate potential to support 15-minute midday service if new resources become available. No changes are proposed to the proposal to reduce midday service on Route 68 to every 30 minutes; however, an option to improve frequency to every 15 minutes is a potential improvement for future consideration. Poor pedestrian environment to/from and along Monterey Road. Recognizing that walkability critical for transit success, several community members and organizations expressed concern regarding the poor pedestrian environment getting to and walking along parts of Monterey Road, which is Gilroy’s primary transit corridor. For example, the Social Services office is only ¼-mile from Monterey Road and Route 68 stops, though the lack of connectivity of the street grid in this area means the actual walking distance between the facility and the transit stops is over ½-mile. The need to consider the pedestrian environment for transit areas is discussed in VTA’s draft Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan, including specific discussion about the pedestrian environment in Gilroy. VTA will continue to work with cities to improve the pedestrian environment in transit areas.
SAN JOSE/CAMPBELL/SARATOGA ROUTE 37 Staff received many comments and letters expressing concern regarding the proposal to discontinue Route 37 in South San Jose, Campbell, and Saratoga. The community and the administration of West Valley College expressed concern over the loss of the route. The route has two primary markets: Service to the communities along the Hillsdale, Camden, Hacienda, Pollard, Allendale corridors, and Connections between West Valley College and the Winchester and Capitol light rail stations.
13 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Route 37 offers weekday-only service every 30 minutes, though the segment between Winchester station and Capitol station is every 60 minutes midday. Route 37 has relatively low productivity (it has 14.0 boardings per service hour, placing it 50th out of VTA’s 56 local routes) and the route was proposed for elimination in the draft plan as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service.
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data to assess the demand for service to the communities along the route (see map above). Ridership not at the light rail stations is fairly substantial with 866 boardings on an average weekday (433 people making a roundtrip). Given the fair ridership along the route, Route 37’s low productivity is likely due to a mismatch in service level and service demand (too much service), suggesting that service every 60 minutes all day may be a more appropriate level of service for the area. Ridership data suggests that many West Valley College students use Route 37 to make a connection between the college and light rail, at both Winchester and Capitol stations. The connection is important for both the Winchester (Green) light rail line and the Guadalupe (Blue) light rail line. The draft plan’s Route 26 would maintain the connection to the Winchester line (every 30 minutes) at the Downtown Campbell station and the Guadalupe line (also every 30 minutes) at the Curtner station. Due to significant ridership demand along Route 37 and the desire to provide multiple connections between West Valley College and light rail, the final plan includes Route 37 service along its current alignment, but at a reduced 60-minute frequency.
NEW DIRECT ROUTE BETWEEN FOOTHILL COLLEGE — DE ANZA COLLEGE At the project’s community meetings, staff received many comments from students at De Anza and Foothill colleges expressing a request for a new direct route between campuses. Both campuses are in the same college district, and the demand for student travel between campuses continues to grow as the campuses specialize and students often have to take classes at both campuses during an academic period. Students developed and submitted a petition to staff requesting a new direct route between campuses with frequent service all day.
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff assessed the request to determine if there is a ridership justification for the new route. There are surely some students that would benefit from service between campuses, however there is no evidence that suggests demand would be sufficient to justify a dedicated VTA fixed route:
14 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
. There is insufficient demand for service between campuses. VTA previously (until 2009) offered such a connection between campuses on Route 23, which continued west past De Anza to Foothill College via Grant, Foothill, and El Monte every 30 minutes all day (see map above). While 55 students boarded at Foothill per day (about 20 of which were going to De Anza), overall ridership activity was very low and the segment west of De Anza was discontinued in the 2009 Comprehensive Operational Analysis due to low productivity. Demand for travel between campuses has certainly grown since the service was discontinued, as the college district has significantly expanded the number of classes offered at only one of the campuses. However, there is no evidence to suggest that demand is now high enough to justify the level of service that would be useful for students, probably every 30 minutes all day. (A 10x increase in inter-campus travel demand from 2009 levels would still equal just 8 boardings per trip.) . There is also insufficient demand to justify additional service for the areas along the route. The areas in between campuses have very low ridership demand, and Route 51 would already serve the segment east of Grant Road to De Anza. The unserved segment west of Grant Road to Foothill is a residential area with limited access to bus stops and demonstrated very low demand when service was provided prior to 2009. The low demand for such a route is another example of the difficulty in providing useful transit service to locations that are not supportive of transit. Foothill College’s location on the periphery of the county’s urban area makes it nearly impossible to integrate the campus into the overall transit network and provide connections such as the petitioners have requested. While there is not sufficient demand to justify providing such a new route under VTA’s regional mission, the college district may wish to explore options to provide a dedicated shuttle.
SAN JOSE ROUTE 23 SERVICE TO O’CONNOR HOSPITAL Route 23 currently deviates from Stevens Creek to Forest Avenue (behind Valley Fair) between Bellerose and Winchester in order to provide front-door service to O’Connor Hospital and make connections at the transit center behind Valley Fair. The draft plan proposed to discontinue the deviation so that Route 23 would stay on Stevens Creek. Staff received several comments from community members expressing concern about the loss of front-door service to O’Connor Hospital.
15 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
STAFF ANALYSIS Staff gathered ridership data for stops in front of O’Connor Hospital, which have 86 boardings per day. While these riders could walk to Stevens Creek to ride Route 23, the distance may be a challenge for some. The hospital is on Forest Avenue, which is ¼-mile north of Stevens Creek (see hospital symbol on map), however due to the street network in the area, actual walking distance to the closest bus stops (Stevens Creek at Bradley) is ½-mile. Staff will explore the potential for new bus stops on Stevens Creek that would be closer to the hospital. Given the relatively significant ridership demand to an important community destination, staff also explored options to maintain its front-door service. The option with the highest ridership potential would be an extension of Route 59, proposed to end at Santa Clara station. The extension (shown by the purple dotted line) would provide service along Benton, Lafayette, Washington, Bascom, and Forest to turn around at the Valley Fair transit center. This extension would provide front- door service to the hospital on weekdays and integrate the hospital into the transit network (including connections to Caltrain, ACE, BART, and light rail). The final plan includes an extended Route 59 to provide front-door service to O’Connor Hospital on weekdays.
SUNNYVALE CIVIC CENTER/LIBRARY AND FAIR OAKS (ROUTES 54 AND 55) Staff received several comments from the community regarding Sunnyvale details of the draft plan, specifically: The loss of service along Olive Avenue in front of the library and civic center. Route 54 currently provides service along Olive Avenue, but draft plan proposed to consolidate Route 54 with Route 55 and Rapid 523 to provide better north-south service in Sunnyvale. The loss of service along Fair Oaks/Remington between Old San Francisco and Sunnyvale-Saratoga. Route 55 currently deviates to Fair Oaks/Remington, though the draft plan proposed to eliminate the deviation and keep Route 55 on Sunnyvale-Saratoga to make the route faster and more direct.
STAFF ANALYSIS The library and civic center (marked by an X on the map) are served by Route 54 at three stops on Olive Avenue, with 59 daily boardings. While no route would directly serve these stops, they are within walking distance to two transit routes: . 800 ft. (3-minute walk) to Route 22 on El Camino at Hollenbeck/Pastoria. Route 22 will provide 15- minute service all day, seven days a week. . ½-mi. (9-minute walk) to Route 55 on Sunnyvale Avenue at Olive. Route 55 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week.
16 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Patrons of the library and civic center would benefit from significantly better service on Routes 22 and 55, compared to Route 54 today. While the library and civic center would be well-served by both routes, staff explored options to maintain service directly along Olive Avenue, though none were feasible because none of the routes in the area could be diverted without significant impact to its design. (Route 22 and Rapid 522 could not be diverted from El Camino because as core routes they should remain on their primary corridor without deviation; Route 55 and Rapid 523 could not be diverted from Sunnyvale Avenue because they are also core routes; Route 53 is too far north and a deviation to Olive would leave areas of Washington Street without transit service.) Given the high level of service offered by nearby routes, no changes are proposed to the plan to discontinue Route 54 and its service directly on Olive Avenue. The area of Fair Oaks/Remington between Sunnyvale-Saratoga and Old San Francisco is currently served by a deviation of Route 55 from the Sunnyvale-Saratoga corridor (see dotted purple line on map). Ridership along Fair Oaks/Remington is significant, with 409 total daily boardings among these stops. While ridership in the area is relatively high, the deviation adds significant travel time and impacts the majority of riders who are traveling through the area. The community along the deviation will be well-served by several routes within walking distance: . Route 22 on El Camino at Fair Oaks/Remington. Route 22 will provide 15-minute service all day, seven days a week. . Route 55 on Sunnyvale-Saratoga at Remington. Route 55 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week. . Route 56 at Fair Oaks and Old San Francisco. Route 56 will provide 30-minute service all day, seven days a week. There are no other routes in the area that could be diverted to this Fair Oaks/Remington corridor. Given the high level of service offered by nearby routes, no changes are proposed to the plan to eliminate the deviation of Route 55 to Fair Oaks/Remington.
17 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
ALMADEN VALLEY Staff received many comments, letters, and petitions from the community and elected officials regarding the loss of service in Almaden Valley as proposed. The draft proposal included a reduction of all service into Almaden Valley as its coverage-oriented resources were reallocated to more ridership-oriented service. VTA currently provides four routes into Almaden Valley (areas south of Blossom Hill, excluding Route 64 which ends at the edge of Almaden): Almaden Valley Routes Limited Route 328 Limited Route 330 Route 63 Route 13
Limited-stop service between Limited-stop service between Local service between Almaden Local service between Almaden Almaden and Moffett Park via Almaden and Tasman Drive and downtown San Jose. and Ohlone-Chynoweth station. Lawrence Expressway. (North San Jose/Milpitas). 7 days/week. Weekdays only. 2 northbound AM peak trips and 4 northbound AM peak trips and 30-min peak, 45-min midday, 60-min peak, 60-min midday. 2 southbound PM peak trips. 4 southbound PM peak trips. 60-min weekend.
Daily ridership in Almaden Daily ridership in Almaden Daily ridership in Almaden Daily ridership (entire route): (entire route): (entire route): (entire route): 9 (73) boardings 14 (168) boardings 96 (833) boardings 185 boardings Route cost per passenger: Route cost per passenger: Route cost per passenger: Route cost per passenger: $8.94 $8.27 $6.37 $7.89 (VTA average: $4.50) (VTA average: $4.50) (VTA average: $4.50) (VTA average: $4.50) (52nd of 56 routes) (49th of 56 routes) (34th of 56 routes) (45th of 56 routes)
Draft plan proposal. Limited Routes 328 and 330 were proposed to be discontinued, as these routes have very low ridership and productivity and serve a very limited market. Route 63 was proposed to be shortened to discontinue its unproductive segment in Almaden (the route would turn around at Blossom Hill). Route 13 was proposed for elimination, given its low ridership and productivity.
STAFF ANALYSIS Following feedback from the community, staff developed three alternatives to restore some service to Almaden Valley. Staff then conducted a focused community meeting to discuss the options, attended by over 100 community members and Councilmember Khamis. While the community generally rejected all three options as not enough service, the community generated some good ideas for consideration. Staff used the additional feedback to develop the proposal as seen in the final plan (map below). Limited 328 and 330. The four Limited class routes in VTA’s current system, including 328 and 330, are all unproductive. Limited routes serve longer-distance markets with limited stops and travel along expressways (which are not transit-supportive in design and pedestrian environment), which limits the ridership potential of these routes. The final plan maintains the elimination of all Limited routes. Route 63. The segment of Route 63 south of Blossom Hill has just 96 daily boardings, which is the lowest productivity segment of the route. Of the 96 boardings, 64 are east of McAbee, which would be served by the proposed Route 83 (discussion below). Therefore, the area left unserved by shortening Route 63 at Blossom Hill currently has only 32 daily boardings, which is too low to justify fixed route service. No changes are proposed to the plan to shorten Route 63 to turn around at Blossom Hill. Route 64. Route 64 could be extended to provide 7-day service for the core of Almaden Valley, turning around at Camden (its current endpoint is Almaden light rail station). Route 64 would provide Almaden Valley with service every 30 minutes all day, every day of the week, a significant increase in service for the core of Almaden Valley. This concept was presented to the community during the public meeting and was very well-received.
18 13.e
Attachment E – Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan
Route 13. Fixed route transit service is not the ideal mobility solution for Almaden Valley, evidenced by Route 13’s very low ridership and numerous iterations of fixed route services in Almaden Valley that have all failed to meet minimum productivity standards. Given its low land use densities and lack of a transit-supportive street grid and pedestrian environment, a more useful and attractive mobility solution for area residents (and more effective use of VTA’s regional operating resources) may be a flexible model of transit service that provides service throughout an established zone, instead of along a fixed route. VTA does not currently offer such a model of service, though a number of other transit agencies across the country have implemented these transit solutions of various designs, offering VTA several models to consider. There would be many issues to consider and resolve in order to implement such a service, including driver training, fares, service animals, software, and operator policies. Staff will explore the potential for a pilot service, though implementation will take time, and the solution may not be ready to begin along with the rest of the service plan. While fixed route service would not “make the cut” on its own merits for inclusion, the final plan includes a revised Route 13, provided on an interim basis until a more effective flexible transit solution can be designed and implemented for Almaden Valley. In the interim, Route 83 would provide transit coverage throughout Almaden Valley that would incorporate two community suggestions on routing details. First, the route would turn to serve Blossom Hill Road between Winfield Boulevard and Almaden Expressway, in order to serve the businesses and destinations in the area. Second, the route would deviate from Almaden Expressway (where the extension of Route 64 would already serve) to serve McAbee Road and Camden Avenue. This deviation would cover areas currently served by Route 63 and provide front-door service to the Almaden Community Center, Almaden Library, and the senior center, in addition to preserving service to Castillero Middle School. The route would continue to serve Bret Harte Middle and Leland High schools as today. Route 83 would provide service every 60 minutes all day, weekdays only. The final plan includes interim Route 83 (a revised Route 13) to provide some transit coverage in Almaden Valley while the potential for a more appropriate flexible transit solution can be explored and developed for Almaden Valley. VTA has begun preparations to explore a pilot flexible transit solution for Almaden Valley, with details to be determined in the coming months. If a feasible pilot service can be developed, staff will return to the VTA Board with a proposal.
19 13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
Attachment F ‐ Paratransit Service Impacts
Background The Americans with Disabilities Act requires transit agencies to provide paratransit service to areas within ¾ of a mile of a fixed‐route service while that service is in operation. VTA’s Paratransit Policy expands on the federal requirement, extending the paratransit service area an additional mile. Travelers heading to or from this extended service area pay a premium fare, $16 per ride, while those in the standard, ¾‐mile service area pay $4 per ride. Since paratransit service operates only when fixed‐ route service operates, the shape of the paratransit service area changes throughout the day which effects when some clients are able to make trips.
There are three potential ways that paratransit clients could be impacted by changes to the transit network:
Their home or destination falls outside paratransit service area Their home or destination changes from the standard service area to the extended service area, resulting in an increased fare The hours of service in which paratransit operates in their area changes Alameda County Impacts VTA’s paratransit service area includes portions of Fremont as VTA Routes 120, 140, 180 and 181 currently serve the Fremont BART Station. When BART service to Santa Clara County begins, VTA will no longer operate fixed‐route bus service in Alameda County. The Warm Springs‐to‐Santa Clara County portion of the BART alignment will be considered a VTA fixed‐route service and will affect the shape of the paratransit service area. As a result, VTA will still provide some paratransit service in Alameda County, but to a lesser extent than it does today.
Travelers in Fremont are currently double‐covered by paratransit service as BART and AC Transit currently fund an East Bay Paratransit service that overlaps with VTA paratransit service. Trips that cross the county line that were previously served entirely by VTA paratransit will now require a coordinated transfer to/from East Bay Paratransit at the Milpitas BART Station or Warm Springs BART Station. Travelers making this trip would pay two fares—one for each leg of the trip. Impacts to Current Paratransit Trips VTA analyzed 142,471 paratransit trips taken between November 4 of 2016 and February 28 of 2017 as a representative sample to assess the impact of the transit network change on active paratransit clients. This analysis included the location of origins, destinations and the time of day of travel. Top line findings include:
The homes of two active paratransit clients would move from being within the paratransit service area to outside the paratransit service area. This is due to the proposed discontinuance of Route 45 in the East San Jose Hills. These two clients accounted for two trips in the four‐ month sample period.
1
13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
The homes of 20 active paratransit clients would move from the standard service area to the extended service area. This is due to the proposed discontinuance of Route 45 and reduced hours of service on Route 88/288. These clients accounted for 586 trips during the four‐month sample period which is 0.4 percent of all paratransit trips taken in this period. 499 of 124,750 weekday trips would change from being entirely within the standard service area to having an origin or destination within the extended service area. This represents 0.4 percent of all weekday paratransit trips. 87 of 17,721 weekend trips would change from being entirely within the standard service area to having an origin or destination within the extended service area. This represents 0.1 percent of all weekend paratransit trips. Change in client home access to paratransit service area Home in Home in Standard Service Extended Service Home Outside of Area Area Service Area Total Current Service Area 6,673 134 0 6,807
Final Plan Service Area 6,651 154 2 6,807
Change to client home access to paratransit service area as percent Home in Home in Home Outside of Standard Service Extended Service Extended Service Area Area Area Total Current Service Area 98.0% 2.0% 0% 100%
Final Plan Service Area 97.7% 2.2% 0.02% 100%
The two clients whose homes would fall outside the service area accounted for two trips during the four‐month sample period. A client whose home is outside of the paratransit service area may still use paratransit service, provided that they travel into the service area. Change in weekday trip pattern Applied to 124,705 weekday trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017
Percentage of Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Trips Trips Standard to Standard No change 122,870 98.5%
Extended to Extended No change 897 0.6%
Standard to Extended Increased fare 499 0.4% Home outside of Extended to Outside of Area 2 0.0% service area Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 482 0.3%
2
13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
99.1 percent of weekday trips would not be affected by the transit network redesign. About half of the affected trips are due to the discontinuance of Route 45 in the East San Jose hills. The other half is due to the reduced hours of service on Route 42 (service ends at 6:30PM rather than 7:00PM) and Route 88 (midday service discontinued) that would push some trips from the standard area to the extended area for certain hours of the day. It is probable that many of these trips could be rescheduled for other times of the day or could serve a different but comparable destination (i.e. different shopping center) that is within the standard service area in order to avoid incurring the extended area fare. Change in weekday trip pattern by time of day Applied to 124,705 weekday trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017
Number of Midday Number of Non‐ Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Trips Midday Trips Standard to Extended Increased fare 223 276 Home outside of Extended to Outside of Area 0 2 service area Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 212 282
Change in weekend trip pattern Applied to 17,766 weekend trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017
Percentage of Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Number of Trips Trips Standard to Standard No change 17,198 96.8%
Extended to Extended No change 327 1.8%
Standard to Extended Increased fare 87 0.5%
Extended to Standard Decreased fare 2 0.0%
Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 152 0.8%
98.6 percent of weekend trips would not be affected by the transit network redesign. It is probable that the 0.5 percent of trips that would incur a higher fare could be rescheduled to other times of the day or could serve a different but comparable destination in order to avoid paying the extended area fare. Change in weekend trip pattern by day Applied to 17,766 weekend trips taken between November 4, 2016 and February 28, 2017
Number of Number of Service Area to Service Area Impact to Client Saturday Trips Sunday Trips Standard to Extended Increased fare 78 9
3
13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
Extended to Standard Decreased fare 1 1
Fremont to Santa Clara County EB Paratransit transfer 85 67 Increase in Paratransit Service Hours The extension of service hours on many fixed routes as well as the increase in weekend service levels will increase the hours of the day and days of the week in which paratransit clients will be able to use the service. As a result, VTA is projecting an increase of 21,110 annual paratransit trips which is about four percent more than are currently served. These additional trips are projected to increase VTA’s Operations budget by about $865,000 annually.
4
13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
5
13.f Attachment F – Paratransit Service Impacts
6
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Transit Service Equity Analysis
For VTA’s Next Network Transit Service Plan
Prepared for
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
By
April 2017
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Table of Contents
Overview ...... 3
Title VI Requirements ...... 3
VTA Title VI Policies ...... 4
Service Equity Analysis Methodology Overview ...... 5 Data Used ...... 6
Service Area Demographics Overview ...... 6 Ethnicity and Income ...... 7
Next Network Overview ...... 7 Next Network Characteristics ...... 8 Potential Benefits ...... 8 Potential Adverse Effects ...... 9 Specific Route Considerations ...... 9
Next Network Public Outreach Phase 1 ...... 9 Next Network Public Outreach Phase 2 ...... 10 External Engagement ...... 10 Marketing Collateral ...... 11
Service Equity Analysis Findings ...... 11 Summary Findings ...... 12 Analysis Results ...... 12
Appendix A: VTA Title VI and Environmental Justice Policies ...... 14
Appendix B: Next Network 85/15 Route Changes ...... 21
Appendix C: Public Comment on Next Network ...... 23
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Overview In 2016, Santa Clara Valley Transportation (VTA) undertook ways to redesign their transit network to make public transit faster, more frequent and more useful for Santa Clara County travelers. Called the “Next Network,” this transit service redesign is aimed at accomplishing three main goals: 1. Increase overall system ridership 2. Improve VTA’s farebox recovery rate 3. Better connect VTA’s transit network with future BART stations at Milpitas and Berryessa
Throughout the summer of 2016, VTA sought community input on three network design concepts, along with transit network design priorities. After analyzing community input on the three plans, a draft network was released in January 2017 for public review which is based on the service plan recommended by the Board of Directors at their November 18, 2016 meeting. During an extensive six-week public outreach period, VTA held nine public meetings, five webinars and made public presentations to over 50 community based organizations and government agencies. Additionally, a website was developed specifically to aid riders in understanding the planning process and potential outcomes.
Over 2,500 comments on the draft plan were also gathered by e-mail, social media and phone calls. Using this input, a final plan will be presented to VTA’s Board of Directors in May 2017. The changes are scheduled to take place when the two Santa Clara County BART stations open in late 2017.
Key to the adoption and implementation of the Next Network is a Title VI Service Equity Analysis that is aimed at assessing whether the service restructuring plan will result in negative impacts to minority and/or low-income communities. Using VTA Title VI policies, the Service Equity Analysis is the subject of this memo.
Title VI Requirements Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601 states:
“No persons in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
It is VTA’s objective to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. As a recipient of financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), VTA is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by evaluating service and fare changes at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 3
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis have discriminatory impacts, including Disparate Impacts on minority populations and/or Disproportionate Burdens on low-income populations.
According to the Federal Department of Transportation, equity in the provision of transit service is described as "providing equal levels of service to minority and non-minority residents of the urbanized area. Levels of service, in turn, are defined in terms of capital allocation and accessibility."1 The metrics of discrimination that could be monitored for disparate treatment include service design that could consistently cause minority-group riders to experience less service than the overall riding public. Despite being an FTA requirement, a Title VI Equity Analysis should not replace good program planning, which should be an on-going process that considers equity among other factors when designing fare changes, service changes, or discretionary policies and programs.
VTA Title VI Policies
In 2012, FTA issued guidance under FTA Circular 4702.1B (Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients), and Circular 4703.1 (Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients) that requires large transit agencies to develop policies for when they are contemplating either service or fare changes.
In order to comply with the guidance, on November 7, 2013, the VTA Board adopted the VTA Major Service Change, Disparate Impact, and Disproportionate Burden policies for the evaluation of service and fare changes. The Policies established a statistical threshold to determine whether minority and low-income riders are disproportionately impacted by the adverse effects of service changes. Prior to adoption, these Policies were the subject of extensive public outreach and engagement. The VTA policies are included as Attachment A, including a description of the public outreach efforts related to the establishment of the policies.
These policies state that for service and fare equity analyses, a disparate impact (and disproportionate burden) threshold of 10 percent shall be used to determine if minority and/or low income riders are more negatively affected by the proposed change, when compared to VTA riders as a whole. The 10 percent threshold applies to the difference in the aggregate impacts of the proposed change on minority and low income riders compared to the aggregate impacts on the overall VTA ridership. While the policies state that the analyses shall be based on VTA passenger data, the analyses can also be based on census data if survey data is inadequate or unavailable for the analysis.
1 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest: “The Impact of Civil Rights Litigation Under Title VI and Related Laws on Transit Decision Making”, TCRP Project J-5, Washington, D.C. June 1997
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 4
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Prior to adopting a service change, VTA must conduct a service equity analysis and analyze specific elements of the proposed plan to determine whether the changes would result in impacts that exceed the threshold established by the policies. The analysis contained within this report uses the VTA adopted thresholds for determining Disproportionate Burden and Disparate Impacts.
Should the service equity analysis show that the proposed service change results in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden, alternatives should be considered to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the discriminatory results of the service change. However, if the mitigations do not minimize adverse effects, the equity analysis must demonstrate a substantial legitimate justification and it must be demonstrated that there were no comparably effective alternatives that would result in fewer adverse impacts.
Service Equity Analysis Methodology Overview
Using the guidance provided in VTA’s Title VI Policies to quantitatively assess the impacts associated with the proposed service restructuring on minority and low-income populations, it is necessary to use data that would capture the system-wide change that the Next Network presents. This allows an analysis that can better isolate minority and low income rider populations that may be affected by the transition and compare them to the overall affected population.
Typically, VTA uses passenger data to assess the impacts of service changes. However, because the network redesign envisions a large number of service changes (route alignments, frequency changes, route additions and deletions), using passenger data for the analysis would not sufficiently quantify the impacts. As a result, this Service Equity Analysis is based on a service planning tool called Remix to help assess impacts associated with the draft service plan on a system wide basis. Remix is a proprietary geospatial data analysis tool that uses Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping software that is customized specifically for VTA.
Both the existing network and the proposed network were imported into Remix (including service frequencies, spans of service, and days of the week) along with census data depicting minority and low income populations as a way of calculating the population’s access to transit under the existing network and the proposed network. This spatial data analysis tool produces “people trips” (total population served by a route X annual scheduled trips on that route) that present a surrogate for how individuals can benefit from a route.
“People trips” are a measurement of the number of residents that are served by transit and the amount of service that is available to them. For each route, People Trips are calculated by multiplying the number of residents who live within ¼ mile of a stop by the total number of annual vehicle trips provided on that
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 5
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
route based on its frequency and span of service. A route that runs frequently through densely populated areas would show a high number of People Trips. A route that runs infrequently through low density areas would reflect a much lower number of People Trips. Minority and low income People Trips may also be calculated by using minority or low income population figures in place of total population.
Using the Remix outputs, the Service Equity Analysis compares the change in Total People Trips to the change in Minority People Trips and to Low Income People Trips. This way, the aggregate impacts on the total population can be compared to the impacts experienced by both minority and low income populations to determine if a Disparate Impact or Disproportionate Burden exists.
If the percentage change between All People Trips and Minority People Trips is greater than 10%, that would suggest that the service change would result in Disparate Impacts on minority populations. Further, if the percentage change between All People Trips and Low Income People Trips is greater than 10%, that would suggest that the service change would result in a Disproportionate Burden to low income populations.
Data Used Remix is based on Census data provided by the US American Community Survey, 2009-2013. The Service Area consists of a set of Census block groups (and its underlying data) determined by the route design provided by VTA staff.
The following data definitions were used: Minority status of the block groups is determined by subtracting the white, non-Hispanic population from the total population. Low income status is set at 200% the US poverty level, based on VTA’s definition of “low income” as referenced in the adopted VTA Title VI program.
Service Area Demographics Overview The following provides an overview of the VTA Service Area population based on the 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Sample, which corresponds to the data set used for the Remix analysis.
These demographic statistics were considered early and often in the development of the service recommendations in order to minimize or avoid the potential for changes to result in a Disproportionate Burden on low-income populations or Disparate Impacts on minority populations.
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 6
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Ethnicity and Income Ethnicity and Income are the primary considerations within the Service Equity Analysis. To determine the Service Area population’s ethnicity and income profile, data from the American Community Survey was used for the block groups used in the Remix equity Analysis. The following Figures 1 and 2 provide a service area overview on ethnicity and income.
Figure 1: Service Area Income Status Figure 3: Service Area Race/Ethnicity Low Income Non- 24% Minority 35%
Non Low Minority Income 65% 76%
Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year Sample
Next Network Overview The Transit Ridership Improvement Program is a two-year study of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) services designed to identify ways to improve ridership. A key output of this study, the 2017 Next Network Plan, has reviewed the structure of the VTA transit network and proposed improvements for implementation in 2017. The planned changes will occur in time for the opening of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Berryessa, including those changes required to integrate BART into the VTA network. The need for this study arose from two converging factors—falling ridership and population growth—that pose important new questions for transportation in Santa Clara County.
Identifying the appropriate service allocation between services geared toward increasing ridership and those geared toward ensuring geographic coverage was the essential first step in the design of the new transit network. Currently, 70 percent of VTA’s operating budget is spent on ridership-purposed routes; that is, those that travel through dense, walkable, transit-supportive places. 30 percent is spent on coverage-purposed routes that provide transit access to parts of the county with little regard for ridership demand.
Three scenarios were studied during the last year: 70/30—70% of the service would be allocated to areas that would generate ridership, while 30% would be allocated for the purpose of geographic coverage. 80/20—80% of the service allocated to ridership-purposed service and 20% allocated to coverage purposed service
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 7
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
90/10—90% of the service allocated to ridership-purposed service and 10% allocated to coverage purposed service.
Throughout the last year, VTA staff and consultants have sought input on concepts and plans studied under the Next Network in order to develop a service plan that addresses the concerns of the Authority and meets the needs of the riders.
On November 18th, 2016 the VTA Board directed staff to design a draft transit network employing an 85/15 balance between ridership purposed and coverage-purposed services. Following a second outreach phase collecting input on this “85/15” draft service plan, staff made changes to produce a final plan. This final plan is the subject of this Service Equity Analysis.
Next Network Characteristics The Next Network has proposed both service eliminations as well as service and frequency increases on the VTA proposed network. Due to the comprehensive nature of the changes that are included the proposed 85/15 Next Network, a large number of existing VTA riders may be impacted in both positive and negative ways. Some of the general benefits and adverse effects that may result are included below.
Potential Benefits Shorter Travel Times—Riders with access to the high frequency network may see reductions in their travel times due to increased service frequency, shorter wait times, and more direct routes. Increased Service Reliability—As a result of the frequency improvements on VTA’s more productive transit corridors, buses will be more frequent, which means that recovery time will be easier to schedule. If a passenger misses a bus, they know that another one will be arriving shortly. Better Connections—As a result of the frequency improvements on VTA’s more productive transit corridors, buses will be coming more often, which means that transfers will be much easier to complete and riders will have more freedom to move throughout the network. Increased Off-Peak Service—In order to increase overall ridership, the network recognizes the importance of improving service during mid-day, evening and weekend periods. By adding off- peak service, riders will have more options for trips during these periods than what is available with the existing network. Better Regional Mobility—The extension of BART to Milpitas and Berryessa will greatly strengthen the regional transportation network and provide additional mobility alternatives for individuals travelling between Santa Clara County and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area. The overall increase in mobility will allow passengers to access employment, education, and commercial opportunities that were not previously available.
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 8
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
Potential Adverse Effects Reduced Access to Transit Service in Low-Density Areas—Some of the outlying, low-density areas that are currently served by low frequency routes would no longer have access to transit service. As additional resources are invested in the more productive core routes that make up the high frequency network, many of the less productive routes would be reduced or eliminated and the individuals in those areas would no longer have access to transit service. Longer Walk Times—As a result of eliminating some routes, some existing riders may need to travel further distances to get to the nearest bus route. In some cases, the bus route that is further away will be running with more frequent service so the overall travel time may be comparable.
Conducting a Service Equity Analysis is a necessary and useful component of this implementation, as it identifies equity concerns early in the planning process so that potential negative impacts can be mitigated.
Specific Route Considerations While the Next Network proposes significant service increases on some routes, there are also service eliminations and consolidations that have been included in the network for areas with low population density and/or absent a tendency to use public transit. In some cases, productive portions of routes have been assigned to other routes to render useful service.
VTA’s twelve Express routes were not studied as part of this project, except for the routes that currently service Fremont BART. As the only VTA routes that provide service outside of Santa Clara County, the four Express routes that currently serve Fremont BART will be discontinued with the BART Phase 1 (Milpitas and Berryessa) extension.
Attachment B provides a chart with route by route changes associated with the Next Network as well as maps portraying the changes.
Next Network Public Outreach Phase 1 Due to the potential scale of changes to the transit network that could be considered as part of the Next Network Plan, VTA started the process of reimagining the transit network by seeking public input on how transit could be improved. A five month long community engagement process was conducted from May 2016 through September 2016 and consisted of a dozen community meetings, four community leader workshops, over 50 guest presentations, surveys, blog posts and social media posts designed to collect feedback on how VTA could make its transit service better. Further extensive outreach has been conducted on the Next Network plan (85/15) that was furthered for study by the VTA Board.
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 9
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
VTA held 12 Community Meetings (VTA staff-led) and four intensive Community Leader Workshops (led by Jarrett Walker and Associates) for the Next Network Plan. Additionally, VTA staff made 15 presentations to community and neighborhood groups. For online outreach, 104,000 unique visits were recorded to the project website. VTA collected 2,236 votes in online surveys, 1,139 social media interactions and 860 email list subscribers. Staff posted 12 blog posts that each generated dozens of public comments and staff responses. 150 Next Network-related comments were received through VTA’s customer service line. In all, over 5,000 points of public input were received during the first outreach phase-more than halfway to staff’s goal of receiving 10,000 points of input throughout the entire project. Extensive communication to Limited English Proficient populations was also undertaken, which corresponded to VTA’s Language Assistance Plan.
The comments received followed many common themes: Concerns over personal impacts of service changes on mobility—How will those who might see their transit service decreased or discontinued get around? Desires for more frequent and reliable transit service—With many routes operating at 30- minutes frequencies or less, transit is not a viable option for many who live within the core service area. Desires to lower the average rider subsidy by decreasing or discontinuing transit service to low- ridership areas. Desires to see public transit as a traffic congestion solution Desires to improve connections with regional services like Caltrain and future BART service A sense that transit did not go where riders wanted to go or that making one’s trip would be indirect or require lengthy transfers Recognition of the challenge of operating transit in low-density, suburban areas Concerns for the mobility of an aging population
Next Network Public Outreach Phase 2 Public outreach has continued following the Board’s recommendation to study the Next Network 85/15 plan. The following is a summary of the second outreach phase on the Next Network, conducted during January and February 2017.
External Engagement 2,500+ incoming public comments collected via phone, e-mail and specialized microsite https://nextnetwork.vta.org, with information on the site mirrored in English, Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese. Nine public meetings held thus far resulted in: o Average attendance = 46; o Total attendance = 421
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 10
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
16 videos (2 live streamed meetings, 5 geographically-focused webinars, 8 college-focused videos) – key metrics include: 4,300 views 111 live viewers 25,700 hours of watch time 250 comments 45 thumbs-up and 75 shares Countywide Title VI mailing to 150 organizations Targeted South County Title VI mailing to 80 organizations Community presentations include: Saratoga Senior Center, SJ District 1 Leadership Council, SPUR, Transform, Gunn High School PTA, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Hope Services, Centennial Recreation Senior Center (Morgan Hill), Traffic Safe Communities Network among others Outreach to Community Based Organizations, offering presentations/literature for distribution Educational Institution Transit Fairs: San Jose State, De Anza, SCU, City College Multilingual Street Team ambassadors deployed in the field at major transit hubs for 10 days; reach was over 3,300 individuals.
Marketing Collateral Car cards translated in 5 languages on all vehicles Proposed discontinued route flyers distributed on affected bus lines Bus Stop signage at proposed deleted stations Light Rail Station and Bus Shelter Posters Passenger Information Message Signs on light rail platforms Bus Bench Ads Special Take Ones (passenger newsletter translated in 5 languages with a proposed service map) on board buses and at major literature distribution points Two rounds of print newspaper ads in 24 publications targeting community and minority publications including: San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, Metro Newspapers, Gilroy Dispatch/Morgan Hill Times, El Observador, News for Chinese, Philippine News, Korea Daily, Thoi Bao/Vietnam Daily News, Palo Alto Daily Newspaper, Santa Clara Weekly, Evergreen/Almaden Times Aggressive social media (Twitter, Facebook, Gov Delivery, Next Door) campaign promoting meetings and webinars
Service Equity Analysis Findings An Equity Analysis should not take the place of thoughtful planning at the earliest stages of project development. Understanding the impacts that plans, programs or projects have on minority and low-
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 11
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
income communities has been part of the early planning and development process for the Next Network. Equity “check-in” analyses also occurred at various stages in the process. While a Service Equity Analysis may uncover impacts to protected populations, if the needs of the agency have been matched with the needs of the low income and minority communities, an Equity Analysis can also demonstrate that the agency has listened to the community and addressed their major concerns.
Summary Findings Using the impact thresholds established under the VTA Title VI and Environmental policies and based on a Service Equity Analysis performed on the proposed final Next Network service plan, the network changes would not impose a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low income populations.
Analysis Results Based on the Remix data, the final Next Network service plan will result in a reduction of approximately 519 million People Trips annually. This represents a little less than a 2% reduction (-1.70%). It should be noted that this magnitude of change falls well below the margin of error. Additionally, though the BART extension will increase access to jobs and residents, the analysis methodology shows a decrease in people trips because of two factors: 1) the increase in service to the areas surrounding the two BART stations means few new people trips because the station areas were sparsely-populated per the 2009-2013 Census data, and 2) the service provided by the BART extension itself, including connections throughout the entire BART system, are not reflected because the extension will not be operated directly by VTA.
Minority populations will fare slightly better under the service plan than the overall population, and experience only 1.44% reduction in People Trips. The Difference between Minority Impacts to All Impacts is negligible at 0.26%. This does not represent a Disparate Impact using the 10% threshold established in the VTA policies. Table 1 presents the impacts experienced by the total population and the minority population expressed in People Trips.
Table 1: Disparate Impact Analysis People Trips (Total) People Trips (Minority) Difference of Minority Exceed 10% Net change to % Net change People Trips People Trips % Change Impacts to DI Threshold Existing Change to Existing Total Impacts Existing Network 31,126,194,325 22,335,385,235 Proposed Network 30,606,506,800 -519,687,525 -1.70% 22,019,054,671 -316,330,564 -1.44% 0.26% NO
Additionally, low income populations will also experience fewer impacts when compared to the overall population under the final Next Network service plan, with a net reduction to Low Income People Trips of 0.67%. This also does not represent a Disproportionate Burden using the 10% threshold established
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 12
13.g Attachment G - Transit Service Equity Analysis
by the VTA policies. Table 2, below, presents the impacts experienced by the total population and the low income population expressed in People Trips.
Table 2: Disproportionate Burden Analysis
People Trips (Total) People Trip (Low Income) Difference of Low Income Exceed 10% Net change to % Net change People Trips People Trips % Change Impacts to DB Threshold Existing Change to Existing Total Impacts Existing Network 31,126,194,325 9,597,124,302 Proposed Network 30,606,506,800 -519,687,525 -1.70% 9,533,081,271 -64,043,031 -0.67% 1.03% NO
As an additional support to this analysis, we also viewed the difference between the impacts borne by minority and low income populations compared to the overall percentage of minority and low income populations within the service area. While this does not take into consideration the difference between the aggregate change between the total population impacts and the minority or low income population impacts that is required for the Service Equity Analysis, it does provide a touchstone to determine how well the impacts borne by the two populations compare to the overall minority and low income populations in the Service Area. As a result of this analysis, it appears that both low income and minority populations that experience the impacts are less than the overall population within the service area. For the low income populations, the impacts are a little more than half of the low income population in the area. Table 3 provides this analysis.
Table 3: Impacts “Borne” by Low Income and Minority Populations
Low Income Minority Impact Borne By: 12.3% 60.9% Service Area Average: 23.5% 65.3% Difference: -11.2% -4.5%
As previously stated, a Service Equity Analysis should not take the place of thoughtful planning in the development stage. However, because the impacts to minority and low-income communities were considered early in the planning and development process for the Next Network, VTA was able to bridge the needs of the agency with the needs of the low income and minority populations, and develop a service plan that has minimal system-wide impacts to both populations.
VTA Next Network Service Equity Analysis Page 13
A&F Item 13 CMPP Item 10 SSTPO Item 8
Proposed Final Transit Service Plan April Standing Committees Project Goals
1) Increase Ridership 2) Improve Cost-effectiveness 3) Connect to BART
2 Project Timeline
Feb 2016 Transit Choices Report Jun 2016 Transit Alternatives Report (Network Concepts) Summer 2016 Outreach Phase I Nov 2016 Board Direction for 85/15 Draft Plan Jan 2017 85/15 Draft Plan Released Jan-Feb 2017 Phase II Outreach April 2017 Proposed Final Plan Released May 2017 Board Adoption of Final Plan Late 2017 Service Changes Coincide with the Start of BART Service
3 Phase II Outreach
9 Public Meetings 5 Webinars 85 Presentations
3,300 riders reached by Over 3,000 comments received multi-lingual street team
4 34 Changes from Draft Plan to Final Plan Modify Route Alignment Increase Service Level
20 21 23 25 23 57 288 522 523
27 31 51 53 Restore Service or Add Stops
37 42 65 83 89 87 500 56 59 64 71
72 96 Minor Adjustments to Service 27 64 72 73 77 522
5 Reallocation of Service Hours
6 Boardings Per Revenue Hour (Weekdays)
Non-Express Bus Routes 7 Subsidy Per Ride (Weekdays)
Non-Express Bus Routes 8 Expand Frequent Network Current Frequent 15-minute, all-day frequency on weekdays 22 23 25 64
70 B P Current Rapid 522
New Frequent 26 57 60 61
66 68 73 77 72 O G New Rapid 500 523 9 Enhance Light Rail System
10 More Weekend Service
-6%
+15% +12%
11 Connections to BART Stations
12 Service Hierarchy
4 routes + express
3 routes
14 routes
23 routes
9 routes 13 Expanding Potential Transit Market Near the Frequent Network
14 Ridership Projections Compared to current service plan… 15 to 20 percent increase in light rail ridership 8 to 10 percent increase in bus ridership
6 Months 70% Ridership takes about 12 Months 80% two years to 18 Months 90% materialize. 24 Months 100%
15 Paratransit Impacts
21,000 more annual trips
2 active clients homes outside of service area
20 active clients homes move to extended area
16 Title VI Equity Analysis
Title VI Equity Analysis on final plan conducted independently by NWC Partners
no disparate impact on minority populations no disproportionate burden on low-income populations
17 Final Plan Map
Text
18 Final Plan Map
Text
19 Final Plan Map
Text
20 Next Steps
• Implementation • Marketing and Information Campaign • New System Map and Timeguides • Express Bus Study • Transit Sustainability Policy Update and Service Performance Monitoring
21 Advisory Committee Comments
• Appreciate Outreach • Interest in Measure B uses for innovative, first/last mile services • Want greater definition of Core Connectivity Program • Want clarity on timing of Measure B transit funding availability • Cities are already thinking about Measure B uses • West Valley Senior Mobility • South County Mobility Service • Palo Alto City Shuttle • Almaden Valley On-Demand Service
22 Questions nextnetwork.vta.org
23 14
Date: April 13, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Engr & Transp Infra Dev, Dennis Ratcliffe
SUBJECT: Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project - Contract for Final Design Services
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with BKF in the amount up to $14,100,000 to perform final design services for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project. BACKGROUND:
The Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project will enhance regional connectivity by extending VTA Light Rail service from the existing Alum Rock Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. Light Rail will operate primarily in the median of Capitol Expressway. New stations will be built at Story Road and Eastridge Transit Center (Attachment A). This extension will enhance transit access to VTA’s future Milpitas BART station.
In 2004, the VTA Board of Directors approved preliminary engineering studies and preparation of environmental document. In 2006, the board approved final design services for the project which included light rail extension to Eastridge, pedestrian improvements along Capitol Expressway and Eastridge Transit Center improvements. Due to funding constraints, the project design was advanced in phases. The pedestrian improvements along Capitol Expressway and Eastridge Transit Center was designed and constructed. However, the final design of light rail extension to Eastridge was deferred until a funding plan could be established. In June 2016, the VTA Board of Directors approved to commit funds for completing the final design, acquiring right of way and utility relocation for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail extension to Eastridge.
14
DISCUSSION: In December 2016, VTA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for final design services for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project. The following three firms submitted proposals. AECOM BKF WSP Parson Brinckerhoff
A five person review panel consisting of representatives from the City of San Jose and VTA evaluated proposals and interviewed all three firms. The interviews provided additional information about the company’s work plan, staff capabilities and innovative solutions. The review panel determined that BKF demonstrated a good understanding of the project, stakeholder relationships, and a well-established process for completing final design. BKF's previous experience included designing light rail extension projects of similar scope. The BKF team includes fourteen Subconsultants. (Attachment B) The proposed contract will be cost plus fixed fee with a term of two years in the amount of $14,100,000. The recommended action will support the current project implementation schedule: Begin Final Engineering - June 2017 Complete Final Engineering - Dec 2018 Complete Utility Relocation - March 2019 Begin Construction - April 2019 Complete Construction - March 2023
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board of Directors can elect not to authorize award of this contract, however that action would delay implementation of the Capitol Expressway Light Rail extension and its rail connection to VTA’s future Milpitas BART station.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $14,100,000 for final design services. Sufficient appropriation for these expenditures is available in the FY17 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget. This contract is funded with 2000 Measure A funds.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
Based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities, a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal of 5.92 % has been established for this contract. BKF has met the established goal and has committed to 23.87 % SBE participation on this contract.
Prepared by: Ven Prasad, Engineering Group Manager
Page 2 of 3 14
Memo No. 5658
ATTACHMENTS: 5658 - Attachment A - Project Map (PDF) 5658 - Attachment B - Sub Consultant List (PDF)
Page 3 of 3 14.a
ATTACHMENT A
Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project
Project Map
14.b ATTACHMENT B
Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project
Sub Consultant List
FIRM NAME NAME ROLE LOCATION BKF Engineers Natalina Bernardi Vice President San Jose, CA (Prime) HNTB Corporation Darlene Gee Vice President San Jose, CA
Biggs Cardosa Associates Roy Schnabel Principal San Jose, CA
FMG Architects Claudia Guadagne President Oakland, CA
Apex Strategies Eileen Goodwin Principal Santa Cruz, CA
Sierra Engineering Group Jesus Sierra President Fremont, CA
Lamoreaux Associates Steve Lamoreaux Vice President San Jose, CA
YEI Engineers Patrick Mallillin Principal San Jose, CA
Alliance Engineering Kenneth Ngai Principal Santa Clara, CA Consultants
Callander Associates Brian Fletcher Principal San Jose, CA Landscape Architecture Lerch Bates & Associates Ron Welts Regional Manager Emeryville, CA
PARIKH Consultants Gary Parikh President San Jose, CA
GeoCon Consultants Rick Day Principal Livermore, CA
V&A Consulting Engineers Glenn Wilson Western Regional Oakland, CA Manager Hexagon Transportation Gary Black President San Jose, CA Consultants
15
Date: April 13, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: May 4, 2017
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Interim Director - Planning & Program Development, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: Contract Award of Silicon Valley Express Lanes Electronic Toll Systems Integration Services
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a master task order contract with TransCore to provide Electronic Toll System Integration services for the Silicon Valley Express Lanes (SVEL) Program on US 101and SR 85 for a five-year term with an option to extend the term to provide SI services throughout the duration of the SVEL Program, in an amount not to exceed $20 million.
BACKGROUND:
The VTA Board of Directors (Board) approved the SVEL Program at the December 11, 2008 Board meeting. The SVEL Program will implement a roadway pricing system on SR 237/I-880 and US 101/SR 85 to allow the use of unused capacity in carpool lanes to provide congestion relief. This means that carpool lanes converted to Express Lane operations would be open for use by solo commuters that pay a fee. Carpoolers and other commuters that already use the carpool lanes for free would continue to use the lanes for free. The fee would change dynamically in response to existing congestion levels and available capacity in the carpool lanes. The lane use fee is planned to be collected electronically using the Bay Area’s FastTrak transponder system.
The SVEL Program has been undertaken to provide long-term mobility benefits to corridor travelers and to provide a funding stream for transportation improvements within the corridor. Specifically, the primary objectives of the SVEL Program are to:
1. Provide congestion relief through more effective use of existing roadways;
15
2. Provide commuters with a new mobility option; and 3. Provide a new funding source for transportation improvements including public transit.
The SVEL Program includes US 101/SR 85 Express Lane development. Attachment A shows the proposed Express Lanes on US 101/SR 85.
Phases for the SVEL Program that have been identified for implementation on the US 101/SR 85 corridor include:
Phase 3 (US 101/SR 85) - Convert existing carpool lanes to express lanes on: o US 101 between Fair Oaks Avenue in Sunnyvale and the San Mateo County countyline in Palo Alto, including the US 101/SR 85 direct connector ramps and the dual lane carpool lanes. o SR 85 between SR 237 and US 101 in Mountain View. Phase 4 (US 101/SR 85) - Convert existing carpool lanes to express lanes on: o US 101 between Bailey Avenue in Morgan Hill and SR 85 in San Jose, including the US 101/SR 85 direct connector ramps. o SR 85 between US 101 and SR 87 in San Jose.
The development and implementation of express lanes requires both a roadway contract and an electronic toll systems (ETS) integration contract requiring coordination between the civil design consultant and the system integrator. The ETS includes a combination of electronic toll collection, detection of traffic in the express lanes and mixed flow lanes, video surveillance and enforcement. The civil design consultant is HNTB and are currently completing preliminary design. As the civil design progresses into final design, HNTB will need to coordinate with the Electronic Toll Systems Integrator.
DISCUSSION:
Staff proposes a new Electronic Toll Systems Integrator contract in the form of a master task order contract to provide electronic toll systems integration services for the entirety US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes. The master task order contract would allow the Systems Integrator to provide toll system integration and support services, design and installation of the electronic toll system for US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes. VTA would issue task orders under this contract until the US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes are completed based on funding availability. The advantages of having one SI contractor for US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes include: cost savings in maintenance, ease of training of user interface, and project management oversight.
Industry Review of draft RFP: VTA issued a Request for Industry Review for the SVEL Program ETS Integrator Services on July 31, 2015 to provide SI vendors an opportunity to review and offer constructive comments and recommendations to better clarify the requirements in the final RFP. Three interested vendors provided feedback on the draft RFP. Each vendor was invited to a one-on-one Industry Review meeting with VTA staff. VTA considered the input from SI in the final RFP.
Request for Proposal Process: VTA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on October 28, 2016. A notice to prospective proposers was published in the San Jose Post-Record on October 31,
Page 2 of 4 15
2016 and published on VTA’s Procurement website.
The following two proposals were received on or before the January 17, 2017 deadline: 1. Parsons Transportation Group Inc. 2. TransCore, LP
An RFP review board consisting of representatives from the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA), and three VTA staff overseeing the SVEL Program conducted a review of the two proposals. The evaluation criteria used were as follows:
Qualifications of the Firm Staffing and Project Organization Work Plan/Project Understanding Technical Approach Local Firm Preference
The Review Board evaluated proposals based on the evaluation criteria and interviewed both proposers. The Review Board determined that TransCore’s proposal offers VTA the best technical solution overall and was deemed most qualified.
TransCore is an experienced express lanes systems integrator both in the Bay Area and the country. TransCore is involved in five Bay Area express lanes projects, two for VTA and three for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The firm has proven experience with working with VTA on the implementation, operations, and maintenance of the SR 237 Phase 1 project and is also the SI for the SR 237 Phase 2 project that is projected to open in 2019. The three other MTC express lanes projects with TransCore are the SI are I-680 Express Lanes in Contra Costa County, I-80 in Solano County, and I-880 in Alameda County. In addition, TransCore also has national experience in delivering express lanes projects such as the I-15 Express Lanes in San Diego for the San Diego Association of Governments and the I-15 Express Lanes project in Salt Lake City, Utah for the Utah Department of Transportation.
Attachment B provides a list of the recommended prime and sub-consultants for this project along with their contact information.
Current Scope Needed:
VTA staff conducted contract negotiations with TransCore for Task Order 1, as defined below, resulting in a negotiated amount of $210,250.80. As funding becomes available, future task orders would be negotiated and issued to complete the ETS scope for US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes on an incremental basis.
The initial task orders identified for the Phase 3 (US 101/SR 85 in Mountain View) project include:
1. Civil Design Collaboration (Task Order 1). This task includes meeting with VTA and its civil design consultant to discuss, review and provide comments on the civil infrastructure plans, specifications, and Contract terms to ensure a complete
Page 3 of 4 15
understanding of the proposed civil construction work for integration of the Electronic Toll System. 2. Development (detailed design) of ETS (Future Task Order 2). This task includes preliminary design documents, detailed design documents and various test plans for the Electronic Toll System. 3. Implementation and Warranty (Future Task Order 3). This task includes installation of ETS field equipment, conduits and cables, gantries, barrier rail systems, CCTV poles, vehicle detector stations, and software installation, including on-site SI testing and debugging, conducting a detailed System Acceptance Test and approval for use of the ETS with all components and interfaces fully integrated for express lanes operations and a one-year warranty period. 4. ETS Maintenance (Future Task Order 4). This task includes full maintenance of ETS including roadside and toll data center hardware and software, from the time of commissioning through the warranty period and into subsequent five-year maintenance service periods.
Similar tasks are anticipated for Phase 4 (US 101/SR 85 in south San Jose) and subsequent future phases. In addition, VTA and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and/or City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County may enter into a funding agreement that could fund and authorize VTA to provide SI services along US 101 into San Mateo county. These SI services may be awarded by task order through this Contract.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may elect to reject the staff recommendation of award to TransCore and recommend issuing of a new RFP. However, doing this would result in substantial delays to the delivery and implementation of US 101/SR 85 Express Lanes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action authorizes up to $20 million for Electronic Toll Systems Integration for the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Projects. Appropriation for the initial Task Order of $210,250.80 is included in the FY17 Adopted VTP Highway Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget. Appropriation for future expenditures would be requested in upcoming budget cycles. SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
Goals for participation of SBE firms would be set on each individual Task Order.
Prepared by: Charmaine Zamora Memo No. 6051
ATTACHMENTS: 6051_Attachment A_SVEL Phases1-4 (PDF) 6051_Attachment_B_Consultant_List_2017_04_13 (PDF)
Page 4 of 4 S I L I C O N VA L L E Y E X P R E S S L A N E S 15.a
PALO ALTO
·|}þ237 MILPITAS
MOUNTAIN #!"$880 VIEW #$!"680
5 SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS ·|}þ8
SANTA CLARA
280 CUPERTINO #$!" ·|}þ87 SAN JOSE CAMPBELL
SARATOGA
·|}þ85 ·|}þ17
LOS GATOS
Freeways and Express Lanes Phase 1 (In Operation) Future Phases - TBD Phase 2 Freeways Phase 3 HOV Lane to HOV Lane Phase 4 Connector
0 1.25 2.5 5 MORGAN HILL Miles © Dunne Avenue 15.b
ATTACHMENT B
Silicon Valley Express Lanes Electronic Toll Systems Integration Services
Consultant List
FIRM NAME NAME ROLE LOCATION TransCore Chris Hall Prime Nashville, TN Calcom, Inc Cesar Artiga Sub-Consultant Gilroy, CA IBI Group Andrew Leslie Sub-Consultant Seattle, WA Neteon Technologies Cesar Artiga Sub-Consultant Somerset, NJ NorCal General Construction San Jose, CA Corp. Kenny Phan Sub-Consultant TJKM Trans Consultants Atul Patel Sub-Consultant Pleasanton, CA
16
Date: April 14, 2017 Current Meeting: April 20, 2017 Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administration & Finance Committee
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Inez Evans
SUBJECT: Low/No Electric Bus Procurement Information
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
BACKGROUND:
On September 1, 2016, the Board adopted Resolution 2016.09.21 allowing VTA to begin negotiations with Proterra Inc., of Burlingame, California (“Proterra”), for the purchase of five full-battery electric buses up to 43 feet in length and associated in-yard charging systems for VTA’s service. VTA has been awarded a Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Low/No Emission Vehicle Grant with Proterra named as a partner in the grant application. The Board also authorized the necessary funding to procure the five full-battery electric buses and charging facilities.
The FTA considers the competitive nature of Low/No Program proposal selection to constitute adequate competition for the purpose of satisfying third-party contracting requirements applicable to the procurement of proposed transit bus models by selected applicants. The FTA makes this determination with respect to the funding provided through this Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and any other federal funds that may be involved in the selected Low/No bus acquisition proposal.
Subsequent to the approval of the resolution, staff began the negotiations with Proterra that has concluded with agreed-to deliverables and price to be disclosed at a later time.
Due to the ongoing vendor selection process for the separate Board-authorized Request For Proposal (RFP) of five full-battery electric buses (with an option of 25 more buses) and charging facilities, Proterra’s Low/No Program Partnership contract price is not disclosed at this time. Including Proterra’s Low/No Program Partnership contract price in this board memo could compromise the integrity and competitive nature of the ongoing RFP because it could motivate other bidders to change their price proposals. This concern is especially grave considering that
16
Proterra is one of the RFP proposers. Once the proposal period has ended and VTA has received all price proposals, Operations Bus Engineering will provide the Board with Proterra’s Low/No Program Partnership contract price at the Board of Directors meeting on May 4, 2017. At that time staff will request the Board to authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Proterra for the purchase of five forty-foot electric buses, charging systems, and related support. The execution of the contract would be subject to compliance with the FTA pre-award requirements and with the satisfactory clearance of any protests against VTA.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has long been a leading agency in the field of vehicle air pollution regulation. In 2000 CARB enacted a 15 percent Zero Emissions Bus (“ZEB”) purchase requirement as part of its Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies, which was planned for enforcement beginning in 2008. However, the necessary technology was not ready for such significant deployment as planned in 2008, and the project was postponed. In 2015, CARB began working under renewed state-wide emissions reduction goals for a ZEB purchasing mandate. CARB is pursuing this purchasing mandate in order to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals set under AB 32 and to begin addressing the more stringent goals adopted by 2016’s Senate Bill 32. An updated ZEB purchase mandate is expected to be put into place as a part of CARB’s Advanced Clean Transit rulemaking process. This mandate will include provisions to transition all transit buses in California to ZEBs at a yet undetermined date.
Purchasing ZEBs ahead of the pending mandate is directly in line with VTA’s environmental goals. On a per mile basis, a battery electric bus is expected to have a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to VTA’s newest hybrid electric diesel bus. In addition to “greening” the VTA fleet, VTA’s early purchase will give VTA staff critical first-hand experience with vehicles that will be integrated into the VTA bus fleet in the next five years.
DISCUSSION:
The contract award culminates an intensive procurement process pursuant to the Low/No Partnership with Proterra that began with the development of technical specifications describing in detail all the mechanical and design features VTA requires. In preparation for negotiations with Proterra, VTA staff submitted procurement specifications to Proterra. VTA staff requested that Proterra review the specifications to assess whether there are alternatives to VTA’s specifications regarding the Proterra bus design and infrastructure requirements for their bus charging systems that would allow for improved operational efficiency or cost solutions. Additionally, staff reviewed electric bus procurement information from other agencies such as Foothill Transit, Los Angeles Metro, and King County Metro. With this information, staff negotiated with Proterra for the procurement of the five buses as well as the bus chargers and support. Aside from the bus configuration, the negotiation included the bus charging capabilities, range, warranty, support equipment, etc.
The end result of these negotiations is the recommendation to purchase from Proterra all of the following:
Five (5) E2 buses with a 440 kWh energy storage battery system to provide an
Page 2 of 3 16
approximate range of 175 miles.
Five (5) charging systems with the ability to charge up to 63 kW each and the capability to expand.
Appropriate support for the operation and maintenance of the buses.
VTA pursued the FTA Low/No Grant process with a Proterra partnership due to the potential funding opportunity and an expedited electric bus purchase process. If the VTA Board of Directors does not authorize the contract with Proterra in May, VTA will need to request FTA permission to re-schedule the grant to another Low or Zero emission bus procurement. A long delay in being granted such permission is a certainty, and the likelihood of losing the grant entirely is very high.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION:
The FTA requires transit vehicle manufacturers, as a condition of being authorized to bid or propose on FTA-assisted transit vehicle procurements, to certify that they have an overall annual DBE goal approved by FTA. Pursuant to federal regulation, VTA did not set a DBE goal on this procurement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Appropriation for these expenditures is included in the FY17 Adopted VTA Transit Fund Capital Budget. This contract is funded by Federal Low/No Grant funding, State Low Carbon Transit Operations Program grants and local funds.
Prepared By: Art Douwes Memo No. 6095
Page 3 of 3