diridon station joint policy advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
DIRIDON STATION JOINT POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Friday, December 18, 2015
3:00 PM
San Jose City Hall
Wing Room 120
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA
AGENDA
3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1927 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300
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 the next agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. ACTION ITEM -Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2015.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. ACTION ITEM -Approve formation of the Diridon Intermodal Station Collaboration Task Force; Approve Task Force focus on three tracks: Intermodal Conceptual Study, Master Developer/Financing Strategy and Governance. (VTA/City of San José Staff)
5. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive Government Affairs Report. (Quigley)
6. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive update on California High Speed Rail Authority. (Verbal Report) (Tripousis)
7. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive update on Caltrain. (Verbal Report) (Fromson)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board December 18, 2015
Page 2
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. 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.
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 Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.
DIRIDON STATION JOINT POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Friday, June 19, 2015
MINUTES
3331 North First Street ∙ San Jose, CA 95134-1927 ∙ Administration 408.321.5555 ∙ Customer Service 408.321.2300
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board (“Committee”) was called to order at 3:06 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Chavez in Wing Room 120, San José City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, California.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Tom Blalock Member Present Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present Ash Kalra Member Present Sam Liccardo Chairperson Absent Peirluigi Oliverio Member Absent Raul Peralez Member Present Jim Beall Ex-Officio Absent Rod Diridon, Sr. Ex-Officio Present
A quorum was present.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no Public Presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2015
M/S/C (Peralez/Blalock) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2015.
NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
3
Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board Minutes Page 2 of 4 June 19, 2015
REGULAR AGENDA
4. California High Speed Rail Update
Ben Tripousis, Northern California Regional Director, California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled “California High-Speed Rail Common Level Boarding and Tier III Trainsets,” highlighting: 1) Advantages of Common Level Boarding; 2) Goals for Commuter Trainset Request for Proposal (RFP); 3) Request for Expressions of Interest; 4) Trainsets Technical Requirements; 5) Submittal Information; and 6) Procurement Process.
Member Kalra left his seat at 3:17 p.m., the quorum was lost, and a Committee of the Whole was declared.
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, commented on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) boarding heights requirements, noting this is not an issue in Europe.
On order of Vice Chairperson Chavez and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on California High Speed Rail.
5. Boarding Scenarios in Europe and Asia
Mr. Tripouisis provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Trainset Boarding Scenarios in Europe and Asia.” highlighting: 1) CHSRA – Trainset Performance Characteristics; 2) Existing ADA Standards; 3) Existing European and Asian Platform Heights Standards; 4) Required Platform Height Comparison from different countries in Europe and Asia; 5) HSR Trainset Floor Heights; 6) Lifecycle for Trainset Procurement; 7) High-Speed Trainset Floor Heights; 8) different train manufacturers and models used in other countries; 8) Railroad Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) Platform Train Interface Strategy; and 9) Importance of Passenger Train Interface (PTI).
Member Kalra returned to his seat at 3:21 p.m. and a quorum was re-established.
Mr. Tripouisis added that Europe and Asia are not confronted with the ADA requirements we have in the United States. The trains for the high speed rail project will be manufactured in the United States and preferably in California, per the contract.
Public Comment
Mr. Lebrun commented that in Europe there are two platform heights with the lower ones being used for double decker trains.
On order of Vice Chairperson Chavez and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on Boarding Scenarios in Europe and Asia.
Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board Minutes Page 3 of 4 June 19, 2015
6. Level Boarding at Diridon Station
Casey Fromson, Caltrain Modernization Program, provided a brief overview, highlighting: 1) the current Caltrain ridership and capacity; 2) Regional Transportation Needs; 3) Need to maximize Caltrain capacity and the associated benefits; 4) Caltrain Electrification Project; 5) status of key contracts: a) Design Build Electrification Infrastructure; and b) Electric Multiple Units (EMU) Key Contracts/Milestones.
Ms. Fromson reviewed the following: 1) EMU Original Plan and the recommended EMU; 2) future level boarding and the challenges; and 3) Request for EMU modification. The Caltrain Operational Assessment was also discussed including the following two modification options and timeframes: 1) 2020 Evaluation Mixed EMU and Diesel Service using existing stations; and 2) Future Blended System Evaluation - Full Fleet EMU Service. The potential path forward and next steps were briefly reviewed.
Member Peralez made the following comments: 1) expressed appreciation for all the thought that has gone into the different scenarios, noting it was eye opening to see the different trains utilizing the Diridon Station; and 2) expressed support in making trains and stations better for everyone including those requiring ADA accommodation.
Upon query of Ex-Officio Member Diridon, Mr. Tripousis reported on the status of the delivery dates for the new Caltrain and high speed rail trains.
Public Comment
Mr. Lebrun suggested that the first batch of new Caltrain trains be hybrid.
Omar Chatty, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) expressed concern about the safety aspects of level boarding; 2) would like to see an integrated system with BART, which has a 70% farebox recovery; and 3) expressed concern that ridership numbers are overestimated and costs are underestimated.
On order of Vice Chairperson Chavez and there being no objection, the Committee received an update on Level Boarding at Diridon Station.
7. Creation of Joint Powers Authority for Diridon Station
Jim Lawson, Director of Government Affairs and Executive Policy Advisor, provided a brief overview, highlighting: 1) efforts to obtain grants; 2) future growth; and 3) staff is looking to gather comments from the Committee to make a decision on forming a Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
Frances Herbert, from the Office of California Senator Beall, provided a brief history on the movement to become a JPA, highlighting: 1) agencies and organizations were not coordinating on the Diridon Station; 2) the Diridon Station Policy Advisory Board was formed in 2008 in place of a JPA; 3) since then several Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) have been in place; and 4) several funding opportunities have been missed without a formal agreement in place.
Ex-Officio Member Diridon made the following comments: 1) reasons for failed establishment of a JPA for Diridon Station in the past; and 2) changed his position on the
Diridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board Minutes Page 4 of 4 June 19, 2015
formation of a JPA and expressed support for expediting the establishment of a JPA for the Diridon Station.
Members of the Committee discussed the following regarding the JPA: 1) previous discussions on the topic; 2) concern over how long it has taken so far; 3) drafting MOU’s for approval by the Committee; 4) level of buy-in each member group would need and the criteria for joining the JPA; 5) City of San José looking at the land in front of the station; 6) a JPA would align with the direction of the City’s land and likely be integrated; 7) VTA, the City of San José, Caltrain, and other affected groups will be involved in discussion to move towards a JPA; and 8) importance of transparency.
Public Comment
Laura Tolkoff, SPUR San José, expressed support for the JPA indicating her involvement with past discussions and is looking forward to future conversations.
Mr. Lebrun expressed support on the formation of a JPA, but discouraged the Committee from including the High Speed Rail Authority as a member of the JPA.
Scott Knies, San José Downtown Association, commented he appreciates the move to push a JPA forward using caution to stay within San José’s authority. He noted the need to plan long-term and his excitement about an underground BART station at Diridon.
On order of Vice Chairperson Chavez and there being no objection, the Committee discussed the creation of a Joint Powers Authority for Diridon Station.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Announcements.
9. ADJOURNMENT
On order of Vice Chairperson Chavez and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thalia Young, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Date: December 14, 2015Current Meeting: December 18, 2015Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityDiridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Planning and Program Development, John Ristow
SUBJECT: Diridon Intermodal Station Collaboration Task Force
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve formation of the Diridon Intermodal Station Collaboration Task Force; Approve Task Force focus on three tracks: Intermodal Conceptual Study, Master Developer/Financing Strategy and Governance.
BACKGROUND:
The San Jose Diridon Station is a major transit hub for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. The station currently serves Caltrain, Amtrak, Capitol Corridor, the Altamont Commuter Express, and VTA light rail. Additionally, the station serves many VTA bus routes and several regional express bus services. With identification of Diridon Station as stations for both BART and California High Speed Rail, the station will experience significant expansion in the next decade. Over 890 transit vehicles currently travel through Diridon Station per day; when the station is built out, approximately 1555 transit vehicles will travel through each day. The land surrounding the station has strong potential for redevelopment as a vibrant, high-density urban center.
To help centralize the work required for the expanded station and services, the Diridon Station Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was created in spring 2010. The PAB is comprised of representatives from VTA, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), BART, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSR), the City of San Jose, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the State of California (ex-officio).
4
Page 2 of 3
The City of San Jose completed and adopted a Diridon Station Area Plan in 2011 that identifies land-use designations for the Diridon Station parcels as well as parcels within a quarter-mile of Diridon Station.
DISCUSSION:
VTA and City of San Jose staff traveled to Denver, CO in September 2015 to learn about the process undertaken by Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) to develop Denver Union Station (DUS). RTD staff provided detail on the importance of identifying the transit needs DUS, the process and partners needed to develop DUS, and the governance needs associated with the entire process. With lessons learned from the trip to Denver and with progress of various capital transportation projects that impact Diridon Station, the importance of interagency coordination became even more paramount. As such, the City of San Jose began to coordinate meetings with all of agencies involved with the development of Diridon Station: CAHSR, Caltrain, VTA, and staff from invested departments within the City of San Jose. This working group has been meeting regularly to develop a Diridon Intermodal and Development Implementation Strategy, and seeks to be identified as the Diridon Intermodal Station Collaboration Task Force (Task Force).
The development of Diridon station is taking a multi-pronged approach. The Task Force is developing a road map to understand the timelines, needs and impacts of each partners’ projects to their own. Identifying studies and analyses that can be shared amongst the partners, as well as inform subsequent phases of projects, is a vital part of the road map. The Caltrain Electrification, VTA BART Phase II, and CAHSR’s San Jose to San Francisco and San Jose to Merced segments projects are progressing, placing further importance on the coordination efforts of the Task Force.
An integral piece of the process is identification of the future transportation needs of Diridon Station. VTA is taking the lead to develop an Intermodal Conceptual Plan for Diridon Station. The Diridon Station Intermodal Conceptual Plan will identify the transportation needs for all current and planned services in the Diridon Area as well as the facilities that will be required to provide seamless passenger connections to and between all of those services. Station facility requirements will be identified and configuration alternatives developed and evaluated as part of the project process. The Intermodal Conceptual Plan is a key piece of information that is needed to inform future redevelopment of the Diridon Station. VTA expects to initiate a request for proposals in early 2016 and anticipates the study to be concluded approximately 12 months after execution of the contract.
As VTA moves forward with the Intermodal Conceptual Plan, the City of San Jose is working in parallel to conduct marketing analysis and develop a financing strategy for the Diridon Station Area, and lay out the framework for selecting a master developer. All processes are expected to begin in early 2016, and each effort will inform the other. By sharing the results of the analyses or plans, the Task Force is able to be more efficient and minimize waste.
The Task Force is also reviewing and discussing a governance structure and timeline that will
4
Page 3 of 3
allow for flexibility as needed until more specific information and analysis are identified and completed. In considering the lessons learned from RTD on the development of DUS, as well as on development of the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, an Interagency Agreement that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each partner has been identified as a well-suited initial form of governance for Diridon Station prior to the creation of a formal governance structure.
In addition, the Task Force may build upon research conducted for the City of San Jose on governance structures of various stations around the country. This research may help inform the best formal governance structure for Diridon Station development.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for the formation of the Diridon Intermodal StationTask Force.
Prepared by: Jane ShinnMemo No. 5335
4
Date: December 14, 2015Current Meeting: December 18, 2015Board Meeting: N/A
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthorityDiridon Station Joint Policy Advisory Board
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director of Government Affairs, Jim Lawson
SUBJECT: Government Affairs Report
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1927 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
FEDERAL
On December 4, President Barack Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, a new surface transportation authorization bill covering FY 2016 through FY 2020. The successor to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, the legislation garnered a 359-65 vote in the House and an 83-16 vote in the Senate. The FAST Act is the first long-term surface transportation authorization to be enacted in 10 years, since the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. Beginning in FY 2009, there have been more than 30 short-term extensions of current law, interrupted briefly by the enactment of MAP-21, which was only a two-year authorization covering FY 2013 and FY 2014.
The FAST Act provides an inflationary adjustment to current spending levels for federal highway, public transit and other surface transportation programs, as well as a modest amount of growth over the authorization period. This is the first growth in authorized spending levels since FY 2009. The total amount authorized for all federal surface transportation programs in the FAST Act over the five-year life of the bill is $305 billion.
In the case of federal-aid highway programs, the FAST Act provides $43.1 billion in FY 2016, increasing to $47.1 billion by FY 2020, for a five-year total of $225.19 billion. The FY 2015 appropriated amount was $40.3 billion. For public transit, the number jumps from $10.7 billion in FY 2015 to $11.8 billion in FY 2016, and then rises to $12.6 billion by FY 2020. The five-year total is $61.1 billion.
It is important to point out that there is an estimated gap of roughly $70 billion between projected Highway Trust Fund revenues and the FAST Act’s authorized spending levels. Rather than cutting spending or raising new revenues through a gasoline excise tax increase, Congress
5
Page 2 of 5
covered this shortfall through a series of General Fund transfers, with corresponding budgetary offsets to prevent the federal deficit from growing. These offsets include tapping into the Federal Reserve System’s Surplus Account that is used to provide capital in the event of major bank losses; indexing customs fees; selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; lowering the dividends paid by the Federal Reserve to its member banks; and more aggressively combatting tax fraud. While the General Fund transfers and offsets fully fund the bill over the five-year authorization period, the FAST Act does not ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund beyond FY 2020.
From a policy perspective, given that MAP-21 contained the most significant revisions to surface transportation programs since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 and given that many of those changes have yet to be implemented, Congress did not use the FAST Act as an opportunity to significantly rework the structure of the federal government’s various highway, public transit, highway safety, motor carrier safety, and transportation research programs. For the most part, the FAST Act makes adjustments to the program structure that was put in place by MAP-21, while addressing the emerging need to begin investing in the nation’s major freight corridors. Among the most notable changes found in the FAST Act are the following:
• Creates a new formula-based freight program to fund capital improvement projects on the designated National Highway Freight Network, with a total authorization of $6.3 billion over five years.
• Establishes a new Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, under which the U.S. Department of Transportation would award competitive grants for large-scale highway, bridge, freight, intermodal facility, and grade crossing projects of national or regional significance. Under the provisions of the FAST Act, the minimum grant amount for a particular project would be $25 million. The program is authorized at a five-year total of $4.5 billion.
• Establishes a new pilot program to allow five states to apply to the White House Council on Environmental Quality to seek to have their state environmental review laws suffice for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if their state laws are substantially equivalent to or more stringent than NEPA.
• Authorizes $15 million-$20 million per year for a new Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program to provide grants to states to demonstrate user-based, alternative transportation revenue mechanisms, such as a vehicle miles traveled fee.
• Makes improvements to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program to increase its utilization, including adding transit-oriented development to the list of eligible projects. However, the FAST Act decreases the authorized amount for TIFIA from $1 billion to $250 million a year for FY 2016 and FY 2017, and $300 million a year for FY 2018 through FY 2020. Under the provisions of the FAST Act, any unused TIFIA funds in a given fiscal year would remain with the program, rather than being diverted elsewhere.
5
Page 3 of 5
• Changes the name of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP), and increases the amount of funding required to be suballocated by states to metropolitan regions from 50 percent to 55 percent by FY 2020. The existing Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which provides funding for bicycle, pedestrian, trail, and safe routes to school projects, would be folded into the STBGP as a set-aside, rather than remaining a separate program.
• Significantly increases spending for the Section 5339 Bus/Bus Facilities Program from the $428 million appropriated in FY 2015 to $809 million by FY 2020. This programwas cut by more than half in MAP-21. While the majority of the funds would continue to be allocated by formula, the FAST Act sets aside $268 million in FY 2016, growing to $344 million in FY 2020, for competitive grants, $55 million of which must be awarded for low or no emission buses, facilities, or related equipment.
• Under the Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant Program (New Starts/Small Starts), establishes an Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program to allow the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to enter into eight Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) for New Starts, Small Starts or core capacity projects that are: (1) supported by a public-private partnership; and (2) seeking a Section 5309 funding share of 25 percent or less.
• For New Starts projects, reduces the maximum Section 5309 share from 80 percent to 60 percent. However, the FAST Act allows other, non-Section 5309 federal funds to be used as part of the “local” match, so long as the total federal share does not exceed 80 percent.
• Increases the maximum amount of Section 5309 funding that could be provided to a Small Starts project from $75 million to $100 million. In addition, the FAST Act specifies that a project is eligible for Small Starts if its total cost is $300 million or less. Previously, the total cost of a Small Starts project could not exceed $250 million.
• Requires FTA’s National Public Transportation Safety Plan to include minimum safety standards to ensure the safe operation of public transit systems. In addition, the FAST Act requires FTA to conduct a review of the effectiveness of current safety standards and protocols used by public transit systems. This review would cover a wide range of topics, including emergency preparedness plans and training; maintenance, testing and inspection programs; rail and bus design; fatigue management; vehicle crash worthiness and avoidance systems; and other rail and bus operations safety issues. Under the provisions of the FAST Act, FTA, after completing the review, would be required to consult with public transit industry representatives and evaluate the need to establish additional federal minimum safety standards.
• Increases the Buy America content for public transit rolling stock from the current level of 60 percent to 65 percent in FY 2018, and to 70 percent by FY 2020.
5
Page 4 of 5
• For the first time, includes a substantial Rail Title in a major surface transportation authorization bill. The FAST Act’s Rail Title reauthorizes Amtrak, as well as its operating and capital grants, for the first time in seven years. Over that seven-year period, Amtrak was kept alive on a year-by-year basis through the annual appropriations process. The Rail Title also includes robust safety provisions affecting intercity, commuter and freight railroads, as well as highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, the FAST Act’s Rail Title authorizes a total of $2.2 billion over five years from the General Fund for three separate grant programs to provide financial assistance to intercity, commuter and freight rail systems. Under these programs, funding would be provided to: (1) improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of passenger and freight rail systems; (2) reduce the current state of good repair backlog for those systems; and (3) provide operating assistance to initiate, restore or enhance intercity passenger rail service.
For the next several years, the spotlight will be on the U.S. Department of Transportation and its various modal agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA, as they work to complete the implementation of MAP-21, as well as grapple with the new changes to surface transportation programs found in the FAST Act.
STATE
The Legislature is in recess until January 4. When lawmakers return to Sacramento at that time, they immediately will be faced with determining the fate of several hundred bills left over from 2015 that are still lingering in their house of origin. Meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown is required under the state Constitution to submit his recommended budget for FY 2017 to the Legislature no later than January 10.
REGIONAL
MTC’s Regional Cap-and-Trade Funding Framework: Proposed revisions to MTC’s Cap-and-Trade Funding Framework initially were scheduled to be heard at the December Programming and Allocations Committee meeting, and then transmitted to the full Commission for action in January. However, on December 9, the Programming and Allocations Committee adopted a new schedule that calls for bringing the proposed revisions back to the committee for consideration in February to allow for additional stakeholder input and discussion.
Approved in December 2013, the Regional Cap-and-Trade Funding Framework established a set of investment categories and initial funding amounts for the Bay Area prior to the enactment of state legislation regarding how cap-and-trade auction proceeds actually would be expended. Subsequently, SB 862 was approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Brown in 2014. This bill established annual cap-and-trade funding amounts for the state’s proposed high-speed rail system, and created several new state-administered programs to receive auction proceeds, including the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), a statewide competitive grant program overseen by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). MTC staff decided to propose changes to the regional framework after the completion of the first round of funding for the various state cap-and-trade programs created under SB 862, and after
5
Page 5 of 5
transportation fuels were added to the cap-and-trade system on January 1, which has resulted in a significant increase in auction proceeds.
One of the changes to the regional framework being proposed by MTC staff is an increase in the funding target under the TIRCP for Phase 2 of VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Extension Project from $75 million to $750 million. This change reflects the project’s significance as a regional priority, as well as its competitiveness under the TIRCP.
MTC/ABAG Merger: On December 4, a special joint meeting of the MTC Planning Committee and the Administration Committee of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was held to discuss the following: (1) the scope of work associated with a study regarding the possible merger of MTC and ABAG; (2) the process for selecting a consultant to conduct the study; (3) a cost-sharing arrangement between MTC and ABAG to fund the study; and (4) ways to solicit stakeholder feedback. The Request for Qualifications for the study was released on November 5. The deadline for consulting firms to submit their proposals was November 20. A cost-sharing arrangement and a recommendation regarding which firm should be selected will be considered by the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees at a special joint meeting on December 11. The MTC Commission is scheduled to consider the awarding of the consultant contract on December 16.
Since June, the MTC Commission has been discussing options for improving the efficiency of regional planning activities, which currently are conducted as a partnership between MTC and ABAG. This discussion included the possibility of consolidating ABAG’s and MTC’s planning departments into a newly formed Regional Planning Department to be placed under MTC’s management structure, while reporting to both the ABAG Executive Board and the MTC Commission. ABAG opposed this consolidation, which would have moved the majority of its planning staff members to MTC, taking significant funding and core ABAG responsibilities along with them.
On October 28, the MTC Commission instead voted to select and fund a consultant jointly with ABAG to study and develop a Merger Implementation Plan (MIP) by June 1, 2016. The ABAG Administrative Committee also agreed to this course of action. The MIP will address all policy, management, fiscal, and legal issues related to a complete merger of the two agencies. MTC had previously proposed to devote $275,000 for a consultant study regarding a possible merger of the two agencies after the planning departments were consolidated, but the Commission’s action on October 28 puts the question of consolidating the planning departments in abeyance for the time being. The MIP will allow for a complete evaluation of the structure, purpose and governance of a new merged agency, rather than assuming that one agency would absorb the other. However, if a complete merger of MTC and ABAG is not approved by their respective policy boards by July 1, 2016, MTC intends to pursue the originally proposed planning department consolidation.
Prepared By: Aaron QuigleyMemo No. 5361
5
A TRANSFORMATIVE INVESTMENT IN CALIFORNIA’S FUTUREBen Tripousis, Northern California Regional DirectorDiridon Policy Advisory BoardDecember 18, 2015
Agenda Item #6
• Improves Mobility & Upgrades Bay Area Transportation Infrastructure
• Connects Bay Area to Central Valley
• Blended System Along Peninsula
• Multi-Model Transportation Hubs» Transbay Transit Center» Millbrae Transit Center» San Jose Diridon Station» Gilroy Station
CONNECTING CALIFORNIA: Northern California
CALTRAIN MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
3
• Early Investment Program ($1.7 billion)– Advanced Signal System: CBOSS PTC (scheduled completion 2015)– Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (scheduled completion 2020)
• Funded by 2012 9-Party MOU– $705 million investment from HSR
Artist rendering
BLENDED SYSTEM: SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE
• 51-Mile Corridor
• Blended Service on Electrified Caltrain Corridor
• Stations Being Studied:»4th and King»Millbrae-SFO»Mid-Peninsula Option»San Jose (Diridon)
• Reduced Costs
• Increased Ridership Capacity & Service» Primarily Shared Two Track System on Caltrain Corridor
• Environmental Benefits:» Improved Regional Air Quality» Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Improved Safety» Positive Train Control» Early Earthquake Warning System» Quad Gates, Fencing & Grade Separations
THE BLENDED SYSTEM: What It Means For You
THE BLENDED SYSTEM: How We Got Here
• 2004: Early Planning for a Shared Corridor
• 2009: Planning Advanced to Identify Specific Improvements & Design
• 2012: Revised 2012 Business Plan Featured Blended Service:“The proposed blended system for the San Francisco Peninsula is primarily a two-track system that will be shared by Caltrain, high-speed rail service, and current rail tenants. Initial investigations show that blended operations as currently envisioned for the corridor are cost-effective solutions on both a capital and operating basis.”
• Continue Planning & Environmental Studies for:»Passing Tracks»Curve Straightening»Safety Improvements»Station Areas»Light Maintenance Facility
• Minimized Impacts:»Majority of Work within Caltrain Right of Way
• Next Steps:»Continue Community & Stakeholder Engagement»Conduct Technical Studies & Environmental Analysis
THE BLENDED SYSTEM: What We Need to Do
• Timeline
• Project Definition
• Impacts to Current Caltrain Service
• Traffic & Noise Impacts
• Diesel or Electric Trains
• Right of Way Impacts
• Projected Costs
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Main Topics
SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION• 84-Mile Corridor
• Central Valley Wye Portion Being Studied Separately
• Primarily Follows Monterey Highway, Highway 101 and Highway 152 through the Pacheco Pass
• Stations Being Studied:» San Jose (Diridon)» Gilroy
SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION: History
• 2009: Scoping and Early Planning Underway• 2010: Alternatives Analysis Released• 2011: Supplemental Alternatives Released• 2015: Planning and Environmental Work Continues
• Continue Planning & Environmental Studies:»Conduct Detailed Technical Studies»Refine Alignment Concepts»Evaluate Station Locations
• Next Steps:»Continue Community & Stakeholder Engagement»Conduct Technical Studies & Environmental Analysis
SAN JOSE TO MERCED: What We Need to Do
ONGOING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Board Meeting/Hearing
Public Meetings/Open Houses
Community Working Groups
Early Technical StudiesCorridor/Community Benefits – Safety &
Air Quality
• City, County, Advisory Group Meetings, One-on-ones• Stakeholder Working Groups
• City Manager Meetings, Local Policymaker Group• Council Workshops, Policy Maker Meetings, Briefings
Ongoing Activities:presentations,
activity centers,
neighborhood &
stakeholder
outreach, etc.
State/Federal Elected Offices Briefings
Corridor Cities
COMMUNITY APPROACH -- ONGOING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
• Development of Draft Environmental Document» Continued Community Working Group meetings » Use of CSCG/LPMG on the Peninsula» Ongoing reporting of technical work» Stakeholder briefings
• Community Connections » Identify and prioritize opportunities for all
communities
• Multiple Outreach Opportunities
• The Environment» Air quality, tree planting, adaptive reuse,
sustainability
• Access & Mobility» Improve connections between all systems» Identify first and last mile opportunities
• Safety» Access, Quad Gates, Fencing
• Congestion Relief» Increase Capacity » Reduce Congestion in the 101 Corridor
• Stations» New and Expanded Multi-Modal
Connections
COMMUNITY INTEGRATION: Balancing Needs, Increasing Benefits
• Identify and Prioritize Opportunities for local Communities
COMMUNITY INTEGRATION PROCESS
• Establish working groups where appropriate• Describe goals/objectives/strategies• Describe projects that improve service• Determine implementation strategy• Invite regular community participation» Timeline» Local Participants
COMMUNITY INTEGRATION PARTICIPANTS
• Stakeholder Working Groups--Corridor agencies/organizations clarify universe of projects
• City, County and Local Policymaker Working Groups--Describe potential list of projects to achieve Blended Service and identify coordination opportunities (Grade Seps, Safety Improvements)
• Prioritize projects/opportunities parallel with formal environmental process
STAY INVOLVED
Website: www.hsr.ca.gov
Helpline: (408) 277-1086
Email: [email protected]
Northern California Regional OfficeCalifornia High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113
instagram.com/cahsra
facebook.com/CaliforniaHighSpeedRail
twitter.com/cahsra
youtube.com/user/CAHighSpeedRail
Caltrain Modernization Update
Diridon Joint Policy Advisory Board December 18, 2015
Agenda Item #7
Caltrain Daily Ridership
24,597
26,79426,028
29,728
33,691
29,178
25,577 23,94726,533
29,76031,507
34,61136,232
34,120
37,779
42,354
47,060
52,611
58,245
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
Bike Ridership 11% 2
Exceeding Capacity Today
3
Northbound
Depart SJSeated Capacity
(low season)Seated Capacity
(high season)7:03 AM 135% 158%7:45 AM 128% 150%8:03 AM 127% 149%5:23 PM 122% 143%6:57 AM 122% 142%7:50 AM 117% 137%6:45 AM 108% 126%6:50 AM 106% 124%4:39 PM 106% 124%7:55 AM 103% 121%8:40 AM 102% 119%4:23 PM 96% 113%
Note: Similar for Southbound Trains
Actions to Increase Capacity
4
Caltrain Modernization Program• Advanced Signal System: CBOSS PTC (2016)• Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (2020)
5
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
6
Project Description
11
Area Project Service51+ miles
San Francisco to San Jose (Tamien Station)
Electrification: • Overhead Contact
System (OCS)• Traction Power
Facilities
Electric Multiple Units (EMUs)
Up to 79 mphService Increase• 6 trains / hour / direction• More station stops / reduced travel
time• Restore Atherton & Broadway
service
Mixed-fleet service (interim period)
Continue tenant service
Service Benefits Metric Today PCEPTrains / peak hour / direction
5 6
Passengers / peak hour / direction
5,100 6,300
Example Baby Bullet Train
Retain 5-6 stops 60 minutes 45 minutes
Retain SF to SJ 60 minutes
6 stops 13 stops
Example RWC StationTrain stops / peak hour 3 5
8
Project Delivery Efforts • Environmental consultation & permits• Federal Oversight (FTA)• City/County Agreements• Real Estate• PG&E Coordination• Utilities • CEMOF• Tunnel Work
9
Funding Update• BAAQMD $20M Approved• FTA Core Capacity
– Approved Project Development Phase– Letters of support Congressional Delegation – Package submitted for project rating and FY17 budget– Request for Engineering Phase and FFGA to be done
• Finalizing 6-Party Supplemental MOU• Working with CHSRA on funding agreements
and Prop 1A submittals
10
Procurement Update
11
Electrification Infrastructure• Confidential Information, Transparent Process• Complete
– Proposals received from 4 of 6 prequalified proposers– Technical evaluation complete– Partner participation: MTC, CHSRA, VTA, SMCTA, SFMTA,
SFCTA, CCSF
• To Do– Best and Final Offer with shortlisted– Complicated considerations w/ 3 proposers (active railroad)– Revised contract award date (summer – fall 2016)
12
Electric Trains (EMUs)• Complete
– 6 - 7 vendor participation RFI and high boarding discussion
– RFP Issued August– Partner participation: MTC, CHSRA, VTA, SMCTA,
SFMTA, SFCTA, CCSF– Pre-Proposal Conference (5 car builders)
• To Do– Bid submittal due February– Number of Proposals TBD– Revised contract award date TBD
13
2020 Revenue Service
2020Service
Design / Build / Test
Award EMU Contract
(TBD 2016)
IssuedRFP EMU (AUGUST)
Environmental Clearance2013 - 2014
20142013 2015
Award DB Contract
(Summer / Fall)
Issued RFP DB (FEB)
14
2016
