vta daily news coverage for tuesday, march 5,...
TRANSCRIPT
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:51 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: From VTA: March 5, 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Tuesday, March 5, 2019
1. Don’t bank on light rail to ease Highway 85 gridlock: Roadshow (Mercury News) 2. How to solve the Bay Area housing crisis? Silicon Valley leaders hash it out 3. Metro Transit-St. Louis launches trip-planning app (Progressive Railroading)
Don’t bank on light rail to ease Highway 85 gridlock: Roadshow (Mercury News)
I can practically guarantee that a fast transit route down the median of Highway 85 all the way
from Google headquarters back to Highway 101 in East San Jose would have high ridership.
There are so many people that sit through that parking lot on 85 every single day during
commute time, and so many of those people would happily take transit down 85 so their car
never has to get on that freeway.
Steven B.
Like Mr. Roadshow’s Facebook page for more questions and answers about Bay Area roads,
freeways and commuting.
A: Maybe, maybe not. A proposed light rail extension faces huge hurdles — low density, not
many ways to walk to potential stations and a high cost to operate those trains. But widening
Highway 85 to a second carpool lane may be revisited.
A report says what 85 commuters know all too well: Congestion is worsening. It begins as early
as 6 a.m. northbound and 2 p.m. southbound, with speeds dipping below 20 mph. But a transit
option is only likely to be time-competitive during peak periods and in peak direction. The
market for transit outside at other times and directions on 85 is likely to be weak and likely
would not justify the cost of construction and operating service.
VTA’s all-day services average a per-rider subsidy of $8 while peak-period services average a
per-rider subsidy of $34. For this reason, VTA is proposing decreasing spending on its express
bus service by about 50 percent.
The layout of suburban neighborhoods makes them very unlikely to transform into a more
transit-supportive use. The area with the highest employment density along the corridor,
Mountain View, has just about 5,700 jobs per square mile, compared with 23,400 in parts of
downtown San Jose.
Q: As you know there has been ever-increasing accidents on Highway 17. I drive almost every
day from Summit Road to the Santa Clara Valley. I see many cars that whiz by unaware how
dangerous 17 can be. I propose that Caltrans put up signs with a count of the accidents that
have occurred so far this year, or even deaths.
Ronald Ogaz
A: There are no plans to do so, as these warnings are not all that effective. But maybe your plea
will cause speeders to slow down.
Q: There is a tear in the corner of the fence on Meridian Avenue over Highway 85, close to
Branham High School. I spotted kids from the school climbing through the hole into the 85
right-of-way. Can you work your magic, please, and have this repaired before there is a tragedy
here?
Sheila Norton, San Jose
A: Caltrans and the city will get it fixed.
Q: When will the traffic signals at Santa Teresa Boulevard and Bernal Road in San Jose start
working? New signals were installed months ago, but have not been activated. The intersection
is still controlled by the old lights that are on timers.
Travis Rappleye, San Jose
A: Tuesday, weather permitting,
How to solve the Bay Area housing crisis? Silicon Valley leaders hash it out
State laws, building near transit and more discussed Friday
Connect the Bay Area’s 27 transit agencies. Build more housing near transportation hubs. Write
new zoning rules in Sacramento. And try again on a failed local housing bond.
That’s the way to tackle the Bay Area’s housing crunch and traffic woes, according to a group of
high-powered local and state leaders who gathered in Campbell on Friday. The tone of the day
— dubbed the 2019 Silicon Valley Regional Economic Forum — was cautiously optimistic, as
experts laid out possible solutions, pointed out obstacles, and highlighted recent failures and
successes.
“Silicon Valley has a choice. We can whine or we can win,” said Carl Guardino, president and
CEO of the business-backed trade organization Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which put on
the event.
Live polls scattered throughout the day gave a real-time sense of what matters most to the
roughly 400 attendees, including politicians, business leaders, nonprofit workers and other
community members. Thirteen percent of those polled Friday said they were likely to move out
of the Bay Area in the next year, and 82 percent said the quality of life here has deteriorated
over the past five years. But what to do about it was a harder question. A question about the
CASA Compact — a regional housing plan that includes rent control and higher-density zoning
— split the audience, with 46 percent saying they would support it, and 42 percent saying they
wouldn’t.
More residents are leaving the region than are moving in, according to a report released
earlier this week by the Leadership Group in partnership with the Silicon Valley Community
Foundation. A net average of 165 residents left Silicon Valley each month in 2017 — up from
the 42 per month who left the year before, according to the report.
One of the main themes of Friday’s program was the link between public transit and homes.
“Investment in transportation is also a great investment in affordable housing,” said Chris
Neale, executive vice president of developer The Core Companies.
That’s because better, faster transportation allows residents to live in cheaper areas and more
easily commute to work, he said. Neale also championed building more housing near transit
stops. In Santa Clara County, some of his company’s most successful affordable housing
projects were built at well-traveled bus routes, he said.
Panelists also discussed recent efforts by state lawmakers to control local cities’ zoning rules,
and to encourage them to build more housing. SB 35, which required cities to approve certain
residential and mixed-use projects, has been “a very powerful tool so far,” said its author, Sen.
Scott Wiener. His latest bill — SB 50, which would allow denser housing around transit hubs
and job centers — received a round of applause from attendees Friday.
Candice Gonzalez, chief housing officer and managing director of developer Sand Hill Property
Company, wondered whether the bill would cover enough sites to make an impact.
“I’d go bigger,” she said.
But the bill has been so controversial, especially among local city leaders who worry it will
undermine their ability to control what gets built within their borders, that San Jose Mayor Sam
Liccardo joked Wiener would need a beefed-up security detail as he pursues it.
Meanwhile, Los Gatos Councilwoman Marico Sayoc reminded the group that with more
housing comes the need for more city services — and that requires funding. Sayoc also
expressed hope that in the future, smaller cities could play a bigger role in shaping the housing
policy that will govern the Bay Area.
Believe it or not, some smaller cities want to be part of the solution, she said. “But it does
require us being at the table as well.”
Of course, housing success often comes down to funding, panelists said. Since Santa Clara
County voters approved a $950 million affordable housing bond in 2016, officials have used
that cash to fund 1,400 homes for the homeless across six cities — putting the county ahead of
schedule, said county Supervisor Cindy Chavez.
In San Jose, after a $450 million affordable housing bond failed at the ballot last year, Liccardo
said he will try again in 2020. Last time, he rushed the process, Liccardo said. This time, he’ll
work on building a broader coalition of support.
Future developments should be constructed always with public transit in mind, many panelists
agreed. And the Bay Area must revamp its transportation network, said Teresa Alvarado, San
Jose director of city planning research and advocacy nonprofit SPUR. Local leaders must better
connect the Bay Area’s 27 different transit agencies, she said, and make the process of
transferring between them more seamless.
Alvarado and others expressed dismay at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent suggestion that he
would at least delay a long-planned high-speed rail project from San Francisco to Los Angeles,
instead focusing on a shortened Central Valley route.
There’s no sustainable or carbon-neutral California without high-speed rail, said Ron Golem,
VTA’s deputy director of real estate.
But unless funding appears to connect the Bay Area to Southern California, it’s not a feasible
project, said Michael Van Every, president and managing partner of developer Republic Urban
Properties.
“Here’s the straight shot, folks,” he said. “We don’t have any money.”
Some attendees left Friday’s event feeling hopeful about the state of the Bay Area’s housing
market. Roma Dawson, housing director of the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area, said
she senses momentum behind local leaders like Wiener and Liccardo.
“I’ve worked for a number of elected officials in my time, so I am always somewhat skeptical of
what is promised,” she said, “but I feel more optimistic right now that something is going to
happen.”
Metro Transit-St. Louis launches trip-planning app (Progressive Railroading)
Metro Transit-St. Louis has partnered with Transit mobile app to provide passengers trip-
planning features and real-time information from the St. Louis public transit system, including
the MetroLink rail service.
The official app allows riders to see nearby transit options and departure times. Users can
navigate the region, aided by accurate real-time MetroBus tracking, trip planning, and step-by-
step navigation with Transit’s GO feature.
Transit also offers first and last-mile connections to Metro Transit with its Transit+ feature. For
certain trips, Transit will suggest taking an Uber or Lyft part of the way, and connecting with
MetroBus or MetroLink service, agency officials said in a press release.
Metro Transit-St. Louis joins other North American transit agencies that have partnered with
Transit, including Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Maryland Transit
Administration, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
and Montreal Transit Corp.
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:59 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]>; VTA Advisory Committee Members <[email protected]> Subject: VTA March 2019 Take-One is now available
VTA Board of Directors and Advisory Committee Members:
The March 2019 Take-One is now available. Please click on the link below:
http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Take%20One_Final.pdf
Thank you.
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
408.321.5680
Conserve paper. Think before you print.
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:21 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: VTA Correspondence: Letter of Support for California High-Speed Rail Project
VTA Board of Directors:
We are forwarding you the following:
Thank you.
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
408.321.5680
Conserve paper. Think before you print.
From Topic
VTA Letter of Support for California High-Speed Rail Project
March 5, 2019
Hon. Ronald Batory, Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, W12-140
Washington, DC 20590
RE: California High-Speed Rail Project
Dear Administrator Batory:
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has long supported the California High-
Speed Rail Project. We believe it is a transformative project that will substantially benefit the
California economy and the people of California. As you know, improving the California
economy has regional as well as national benefits.
As someone with a long and distinguished career in the rail industry, we know you understand
the important benefits to mobility, environmental quality and economic opportunity that
transformative rail projects can have. The California High-Speed Rail Project is the opportunity
to create that transformative change.
We urge you to continue the collaborative partnership between the Federal Rail Administration
and California High-Speed Rail Project. To date this project has created around $6 billion in
economic output helping to boost the state’s economy. With over 119 miles of rail construction
currently underway, opportunities for construction workers and businesses, both large and small,
are significant.
Thank you for considering our support of this project. It provides much needed improvements to
rail transit in Santa Clara County and the Northern California region. Your continued support of
this project will result in an historic advance in the history of transportation.
Yours truly,
Teresa O’Neill
Chairperson
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 1:52 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: VTA Information: March 7, 2019 Board of Directors Regular Meeting Materials
VTA Board of Directors:
Please see the attached related to the March 7, 2019, Board of Directors meeting:
1. Agenda Item #2.5 – Resolution of Commendation for Steve Heminger
2. Revised Agenda Item #6.5 – Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High
Capacity Transit Corridors. Removed the word “negotiate” from the recommendation
language.
The following Power Point Presentations can now be viewed on our website via the link below:
3. Agenda Item #7.1 – Blossom Hill Station Joint Development – Exclusive Negotiations
Agreement Power Point Presentation
4. Agenda Item #8.1 – System Safety Power Point Presentation
5. Agenda Item #8.1.B – Creating Transit Oriented Communities Power Point Presentation
You may access the updated agenda packet with Power Point Presentations on our website
here. (Please note that you may need to refresh your browser to view the updated content.)
Thank you.
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
[email protected] (e-mail)
(408) 321.5680 (telephone)
(408) 955.0891 (fax)
Resolution
By the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) a
Special District of the State of California relative to commending the
Steve Heminger
Whereas, Steve Heminger is retiring after a long and successful career at the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission that began in 1993 when he joined the Commission as the manager
of Legislation and Public Affairs; and
Whereas, Steve Heminger has been a leader within that organization and throughout the Bay
Area transportation community for 25 years; having been promoted to the role of executive
director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in 2001; and
Whereas, Steve Heminger’s steadfast commitment to investing in transportation infrastructure
across the entire Bay Area was critical to the success of Regional Measure 3, which provided
significant new regional funding for major projects in Santa Clara County, including VTA’s
BART Extension to Silicon Valley, Phase II; the expansion of the Diridon Station complex; and
the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector; and
Whereas, Steve Heminger worked tirelessly to meet the needs of commuters through a regional
approach focused on seamless connections between transit and transportation systems, and his
efforts are embodied by the success of the Bay Area’s universal transit fare card; known as
Clipper, a system adopted by 22 public transit operators; and
Whereas, Steve Heminger long-championed the integration of land use and transportation
planning and the positive impacts of transit-oriented development can have on transit systems
and the communities they serve, and he created regional financial incentives to encourage
housing production within priority development areas; consolidated the staffs of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments; and
guided the dialogue about the region’s housing crisis that resulted in the CASA Compact.
Now therefore be it resolved, that the VTA Board of Directors hereby commends and expresses
its sincerest appreciation to Steve Heminger for his many years of exemplary public service; and
Be it further resolved, that this resolution is presented with the thanks and good wishes of VTA.
Adopted by the VTA Board of Directors this seventh day of March 2019.
_____________________________
Teresa O’Neill, Chairperson
Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Date: March 1, 2019
Current Meeting: March 7, 2019
Board Meeting: March 7, 2019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT: Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed Price contract with Fehr & Peers to
complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. The contract shall
be for a period of 18 months and not to exceed $800,000.
BACKGROUND:
The Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors will examine the suitability of
light rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and other types of high capacity rapid transit in
corridors throughout Santa Clara County. If existing conditions do not support high capacity
transit (HCT), the study will identify changes that could support such investment, such as
increased residential and employments densities.
The study will help guide VTA’s future HCT investment decisions, and explore and evaluate the
potential integration of autonomous vehicle technology into the next phase of these corridors.
The corridors recommended for advancement will inform VTA’s long-range transportation plan
(VTP 2050).
More specifically, this study will help VTA:
• Advance the corridors best suited for high capacity transit based on existing and future
conditions
• Evaluate the transit supportiveness of each corridor, and recommend the most
Page 2 of 4
appropriate HCT modes for the corridor: Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT), Rapid Transit Service, Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), Electric Multiple Unit
(EMU), or other HCT services, including autonomous vehicle versions of these or other
modes
• Establish order of magnitude capital costs and planning level operating costs for each
recommended mode in each corridor
• Provide Member Agencies with information about the land use intensities and other
changes necessary to support high-capacity transit
Scope
The study will evaluate if HCT is suitable and warranted on existing, legacy, and potential new
corridors that will be identified through a stakeholder workshop. Legacy corridors were
identified from the 2000 Measure A ballot, previous VTA studies, or have long been mentioned
as possibilities for HCT, but have not been studied for their suitability for such service. The
following is the list of legacy corridors (in alphabetical order):
• Blossom Hill Caltrain station to Alviso
• Central Expressway
• Eastridge Transit Center to Nieman Boulevard to SR 87 along Capital Expressway (2000
Measure A)
• King Road: Great Mall to Capital
• Lawrence Expressway: From Campbell to Lockheed Transit Center
• Monterey Highway: Santa Teresa light rail station to downtown San Jose
• Mountain View Transit Center to Palo Alto Transit Center (2000 Measure A)
• Sunnyvale to Cupertino: Lockheed Transit Center to De Anza College via De Anza Blvd
and Mathilda (2000 Measure A)
• San Tomas Expressway: North San Jose to Campbell
• Santa Teresa Light Rail Station to Coyote Valley and Morgan Hill (2000 Measure A)
• SR 85: South San Jose to Mountain View
• Stevens Creek Boulevard: Convention Center to SR 85 (2000 Measure A)
• Vasona Light Rail extension (2000 Measure A)
Staff prepared a detailed scope of work requesting proposals include the following elements:
Page 3 of 4
• Define HCT parameters, goals and objectives, and a comprehensive list of evaluation
criteria
• Existing conditions analysis of corridors
• An assessment of mobility technology, with focus on the impact of autonomous vehicle
technology to transit operations
• Assess corridor readiness, preferred mode choice, and recommend corridors for further
study
• Ridership estimates and summary of equity, environmental, and constructability issues
• Order of magnitude capital cost estimates and planning level operating cost estimates
• Identify transit-supportive land use changes necessary to support different HCT modes
• Provide a concept for public outreach
DISCUSSION:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Study was issued by VTA on August 13, 2018. A pre-
proposal conference was held on August 23, 2018, in advance of the proposal due date of
September 18, 2018. VTA received four proposals from the following firms:
1) Cambridge Systematics
2) CDM Smith
3) Fehr & Peers
4) WSP
A four-person review board consisting of staff from the VTA Transit Planning department and
Modeling & GIS department evaluated the proposals based on criteria listed below, and as
outlined in the RFP:
• Qualification of the Firm 20 Points
• Staffing and Project Organization 20 Points
• Work Plan / Project Understanding 20 Points
• Local Firm Preference 10 Points
• Cost Proposal 30 Points
The review board advanced all four firms to interviews on November 8, 2018. The interviews
provided insight and clarification about staffing plans, work plans, project understanding, project
Page 4 of 4
management style, and level of proposed efforts for the study. The review board determined that
Fehr & Peers provided the best proposal to complete the services as described in the RFP. Their
comprehensive proposal includes a team of seven sub-consultants authorized to work on the
study (Attachment A).
Based on the final scoring, the review board recommends Fehr & Peers be awarded the contract
for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. The team, including prime
and sub-consultants, has extensive experience in transportation planning and engineering, with
recent experience performing studies of a similar nature. In addition, the team includes leaders
in emerging autonomous vehicle technology and its potential impact on transit operations.
VTA Staff negotiated with Fehr & Peers to reduce their cost without negatively impacting the
study or deliverables. The negotiated contract scope provides approximately 4,500 hours of
planning services from the prime and sub-consultant teams.
ALTERNATIVES:
The VTA Board of Directors could choose not to move forward with this contract at this time.
However, a delay in delivery of the final study will leave VTA without an effective plan for high
capacity transit and we will not meet the VTP 2050 update in March 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $800,000 for consultant services for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. Appropriation for this expenditure is included in the
FY19 adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget, and is
funded 100% by 2000 Measure A.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
The small business enterprise (SBE) goal is 7.84%. The consultant has committed 8.9% SBE
participation for the contract.
STANDING COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
The Administration and Finance Committee met as a Committee of the Whole and received this
item as part of its February 21, 2019 Consent Agenda. The item was forwarded to the VTA
Board of Directors without comment.
Prepared by: Tamiko Percell
Memo No. 6842
ATTACHMENTS:
• S18181 Attachment A (PDF)
Attachment A
Firm Name Name Role Location
Fehr & Peers Bob Grandy Principal San Jose, CA
ARUP Chester Fung Sub Consultant San Francisco, CA
Enviroissues, Inc. Katie DeLeuw Sub Consultant - optional task Oakland, CA
IU Group Scott Daniels Sub Consultant - optional task Santa Clara County
Jarrett Walker + Associates Jarret Walker Sub Consultant Portland, OR
LTK Tom Matoff Sub Consultant - optional task Sacramento, CA
Noakro Consult LLC Debra Jones Sub Consultant Sacramento, CA
Strategic Economics, Inc. Nadine Fogarty Sub Consultant Berkeley, CA
Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors
List of Consultants
1/30/2019
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:38 AM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: From VTA: March 7, 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Thursday, March 7, 2019
1. Homeless Advocates Protest Proposed Shut Down Of All-Night VTA Bus Line (KPIX Ch. 5) 2. Line 22 Coverage (KTVU Ch. 2) 3. Los Altos council meeting flows from plea to a plea for action (Los Altos Town Crier)
Homeless Advocates Protest Proposed Shut Down Of All-Night VTA Bus Line (KPIX
Ch. 5)
Some activists are planning a “rolling protest” on board a VTA bus Wednesday night as they
rally to save the route that doubles as an overnight shelter for many homeless.
The VTA’s 22 bus route runs from Eastridge to Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. It is the system’s
only route that runs 24 hours a day.
ADVERTISING
It’s known as “Hotel 22” because homeless people ride the bus from end to end overnight
seeking only shelter. People just like Richard, who is homeless and frequently rides the 22 in
the winter.
“Especially if the weather is like this. This is where it gets devastating. It’s cold,” he said.
Bus drivers tell KPIX 5 that Route 22 has been popular with the homeless for years. As the
homeless crisis has worsened,
the buses are now practically full, sometimes with entire families.
But the VTA could put the brakes on the overnight portion of the route as part of a system-wide
service overhaul and cost-cutting plan.
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is facing a $50 million budget shortfall.
“Overall, our proposed changes — about 70 on the table — could save us $15 million annually.
As we look at Route 22, discontinuing those overnight hours between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. could
save us $500,000 per year,” said VTA spokesperson Holly Perez.
Homeless advocates argue the route should be saved.
“When you have 157 people last year dying on the streets, why take away another lifeline?”
asked homeless advocate Shawnn Cartwright.
Homeless activists plan to join homeless people by riding the bus Wednesday night to protest
the proposed change as well as giving out food and blankets to those in need.
“You have elderly people. You have parents, children. You have women who ride this bus to
stay away from danger. And this is the best people can do, it saves people’s lives,” explained
Cartwright.
The effort to save the overnight service for Route 22 is also supported by the bus driver’s Union
Local 265.
A final decision on the route is expected in May.
Line 22 Coverage (KTVU Ch. 2)
(Live to video)
Los Altos council meeting flows from plea to a plea for action (Los Altos Town
Crier)
BUS ROUTES
The council requested Feb. 12 that city staff draft a letter to the VTA requesting that it find
ways to serve more students at local schools on its existing bus routes. The request stemmed
from a VTA presentation on proposed transit system modifications and an update on the VTA’s
route map as it waits for the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension into the South Bay.
Currently, Bus Route 51 bypasses Homestead Road through Los Altos via Foothill Expressway to
reach De Anza College in Cupertino. The route returns to Homestead Road by North Stelling
Road, denying students from Cupertino Middle School and Homestead High the opportunity to
board. Those schools, according to parent Annette Jackson, do not offer shuttle services.
“We have tried asking the Cupertino school district for (bus services) for the middle school
(during) several meetings,” Jackson said. “They always just come back saying that there’s no
budget for it, no bus drivers, and (mention) the high cost of living in the area. So we try to think
of all the other options that are available to us, and VTA is a good, logical option.”
Bruins argued that the letter to the VTA would be “premature” and “ill-timed” because it
requested that the VTA study the route further, when VTA representatives had conducted an
analysis before presenting route updates to local leadership groups.
Lee Eng countered that several recent situations in the city, including the canceled flashing stop
signs on Los Altos Avenue, proved to be a lesson that further analysis could always be done.
The council ultimately voted unanimously to send the letter.
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:03 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: From VTA: March 8, 2019 Media Clips
VTA Daily News Coverage for Friday, March 8, 2019
1. VTA Operators Honored
2. Office building added to emerging Silicon Valley transit village
3. ‘Google train?’ Caltrain puts naming rights up for bid (San Francisco Examiner)
4. California agency awards $13 million in rail project funding (Progressive Railroading)
5. Congressman's bill would strip California of federal high-speed rail funds (Progressive
Railroading)
VTA Operators Honored
NBC Bay Area (Link to video)
KTVU CH. 2 (Link to video)
Office building added to emerging Silicon Valley transit village
Big Santa Clara office building being launched near Sunnyvale’s Lawrence Caltrain station
A gleaming new office building is being added to what has begun to emerge as a transit village
in Santa Clara a short distance from Sunnyvale’s Lawrence train station.
The modern offices could provide enough space to accommodate 800 to 900 workers and are
expected to be ideal for a tech company that wants plenty of elbow room.
ADVERTISING
“We’re excited to be bringing this best-of-class office product into the Lawrence Station
neighborhood that is rapidly developing,” said Ted McMahon, chief investment officer with Bay
View Development Group, the developer of the office building, which was designed by RMW
architecture & interiors.
The five-story building, which will be at 3607 Kifer Road next to Lawrence Expressway in Santa
Clara, will total 173,000 square feet, according to a brochure being circulated by Cushman &
Wakefield brokers Erik Hallgrimson, Gregory Davies, Brandon Bain and Greg Bennette, who are
seeking tenants for the office building.
The village is the centerpiece of the Lawrence Station Area Plan, which was developed with
input from the cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
“The overall purpose of the Lawrence Station Area Plan is to transform an underutilized
industrial area located within the city of Santa Clara near the Caltrain Lawrence Station into a
pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented development that contributes to a more vibrant and
livable community,” according to Santa Clara city documents.
The village will contain offices, homes, restaurants and retail.
“Up to 3,500 residential dwelling units, roughly 100,000 square feet of neighborhood-oriented
and convenience retail, and approximately 6.3 acres of public open space in conjunction with
various outdoor recreational facilities and landscape features, such as a community garden, a
public plaza, parks and paseos,” the Santa Clara city report stated.
General contractor SC Builders was slated to officially launch construction of the offices Friday
and the building is due to be ready for tenants to move in sometime during the second half of
2020, according to Bay View Development.
“This location is surrounded by many of Silicon Valley’s premier employers and soon, about
1,700 new housing units and expansive retail, thanks to adjacent projects by Greystar and
Summerhill,” McMahon said.
Tech titans such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, through a combination of leases,
property purchases, or both, have gobbled up a widening amount of office space and land in
Silicon Valley and nearby regions in recent months and years.
Lawrence Station is the name of the new office building, which is a five-minute walk from the
train station. The building will also offer open work spaces inside the structure as well as
balconies with more places for employees to gather, the Cushman & Wakefield brochure
showed.
“It really feels like a neighborhood,” McMahon said. “People can live, work and play here.”
‘Google train?’ Caltrain puts naming rights up for bid (San Francisco Examiner)
Google San Francisco Station? Facebook Menlo Park Station?
Names like this may be in Caltrain’s future after its governing board on Thursday approved the
adoption of a naming rights policy at its regular meeting.
That policy will allow companies and other entities to purchase naming rights to Caltrain
“assets,” which the agency confirmed can be stations or even trains.
“I’m visualizing a ‘Google train,’” said Ron Collins, a new Joint Powers Board of Directors
member, at the body’s regular meeting Thursday.
Caltrain finds itself “challenged” to identify funding for system operation, the agency wrote in
its naming rights policy, though the board later amended that language out of the policy at its
meeting.
Naming rights agreements could secure anywhere from $200,000 to $1 million per agreement
annually, according to a staff report that noted the policy would hopefully lead to “future
revenue generation.”
Though the board ultimately voted to approve the policy, it was not without misgivings.
“I’m very uncomfortable with naming rights and selling our name in order to balance the
budget,” said Monique Zmuda, who represents San Francisco on the board and was appointed
by Mayor London Breed.
“Having lived through 3Com park, and AT&T Park, and others, it’s the Giants stadium to me,”
Zmuda said. “The money in some instances doesn’t seem to be worth it.”
Another representative from The City, Cheryl Brinkman, who also serves on the San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors, acknowledged differing views but said
Caltrain may need it “from a revenue point of view.”
However, Brinkman said, the board should retain the right to say “no” to naming sponsors
whose mission and values don’t align with Caltrain, she said.
“As long as we retain a final say-so, I am OK with this,” Brinkman said.
Staff confirmed the board will need to give the final approval for any naming rights deals.
Transportation systems in San Diego, New York City, Cleveland and more have all looked to
naming rights agreements to generate revenue, according to Caltrain staff.
The policy also states that place names will be maintained even if a corporate sponsor is given
naming rights, in order to ensure the Caltrain system is “easily navigable.”
California agency awards $13 million in rail project funding (Progressive
Railroading)
The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) yesterday announced the award of $13.1
million in Senate Bill 1 State Rail Assistance (SRA) funding to help advance nine projects.
The projects are "focused investments" to expand intercity rail service across California, reduce
air pollution and ease traffic congestion — with an emphasis on emerging corridors, CalSTA
officials said in a press release.
Projects receiving awards and the amounts include:
• $5.9 million to the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Corridor/Riverside County Transportation
Commission to build the Coachella Festival special event train platform in Indio to allow regular
special events service;
• $3.4 million to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for four projects to
advance expansion of statewide fleet and maintenance facilities, as well as integrated travel
and piloting of new services to fill gaps in Northern California's rail system;
• $1.5 million to Central Coast Corridor/Coast Rail Coordinating Council and San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments for pre-construction activities for a King City passenger-rail platform,
which will allow service by the existing Coast Starlight and access to Fort Hunter-Liggett U.S.
Army Garrison and Pinnacles National Park; and
• $1.4 million to the San Jose-SacramentoAuburn/Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority for
pre-construction work of a new siding near Santa Clara-Great America Station.
The projects will allow new rail services to be offered that serve the needs of new markets and
customers, CalSTA officials said.
About $27.6 million of additional program capacity remains until June 30, 2020. Applicants are
allowed to propose additional investments on an ongoing basis to supplement those funds.
Back to Top
Congressman's bill would strip California of federal high-speed rail funds
(Progressive Railroading)
U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) earlier this week introduced a bill to require California to
return $3.5 billion in federal funds the state received for its high-speed rail program.
H.R. 1515, the High-Speed Refund Act, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation to
retrieve discretionary grant funds provided to California for high-speed rail development and
return the money to the federal government for use toward "nationally significant freight and
highway projects," according to the legislation.
"After countless blunders, skyrocketing costs, and more uncertainty than ever, it's time to cut
our losses and kill California’s misguided high-speed rail project," said LaMalfa in a press
release. "American taxpayers should not be on the hook for California’s inability to undertake
such an enormous, yet unnecessary project."
LaMalfa suggested instead that the federal money could go toward projects such as widening
Highway 70 in Northern California.
LaMalfa's bill follows President Trump's announcement last month that his administration
wants California's federal grants returned, after recently installed California Gov. Gavin
Newsom said the state would scale back its initial plan to build a Los Angeles-to-San Francisco
high-speed rail route.
Last week, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) issued its response to the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), calling its effort to take back federal funds for the state's high-
speed rail program "rash and unlawful." In February, FRA Administrator Ronald Batory notified
CHSRA officials that the federal government federal government intended to terminate a $929
million grant issued in 2010 for the high-speed rail program and was exploring ways to seek
recovery of a $2.5 billion grant to the program in 2009 — money that the state has already
spent.
Back to Top
From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:40 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: VTA Correspondence: UPDATED - Caltrain March 7, 2019 Board Meeting - Item #10 EMU Configuration
VTA Board of Directors:
We are forwarding you the following:
Thank you.
Office of the Board Secretary
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
408.321.5680
Conserve paper. Think before you print.
From Topic
Roland Lebrun Caltrain March 7, 2019 Board Meeting - Item #10 EMU Configuration
From: Roland Lebrun Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 9:51 AM To: [email protected] Cc: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]>; [email protected]; MTC Commission <[email protected]>; Caltrain CAC Secretary <[email protected]>; SFCTA CAC <[email protected]> Subject: Caltrain 3/7 Board meeting Item #10 EMU configuration
Dear Chair Gillett,
Further to my July 2016 letter to MTC (attached), the intent of this letter is to recapitulate the timeline that led to the developing capacity crisis triggered by the selection of Stadler EMUs which cannot possibly handle Caltrain’s present or future capacity requirements let alone the 240,000 passengers/day by the year 2040.
March 2012 Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis
“Caltrain is planning to use 8-car trains to augment the seating capacity of an existing 5 car train”. “To ensure conservative simulation results, all trains were simulated with a full seated load of 948 passengers (for an 8-car EMU) “.
May 22 2014 Caltrain issues a Request for Information (RFI) to the EMU manufacturers showing a 6-car EMU configuration with capacity for 600 seats, 48 bikes and 2 ADA bathrooms. “EMUs must satisfy JPB’s fleet management and operations service plan needs”
May 20 2015 Board workshop slide depicting “650-seat 5-car trains operating at over 150% of capacity”
August 2015 Caltrain releases a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the EMU manufacturers APPENDIX A (page 468) states that seated capacity (AW1) is “assumed to be 550 passengers” (100 seats less than trains operating at over 150% of capacity).
May 5th 2016 Caltrain releases annual passenger counts showing massive overcrowding on 762-seat trains
July 1st 2016 Caltrain announces that the only responder to the EMU RFP is Stadler Rail Caltrain announces its intention to proceed with a $551M procurement for 16x6-car KISS EMUs with 550 seats
March 2019
The San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee writes to the Caltrain Board as follows: “six-car diesel trains today have an average of 741 seats per train”
“in 2021, Caltrain plans to run a mixed fleet with 33% seven-car diesel trains having 910 seats”
“Caltrain staff obfuscates the capacity loss per electrified train by focusing on one more train per peak hour in 2021”
“Caltrain electrification is a $2 billion program that will have woefully inadequate passenger capacity in 2021”
Respectfully,
Roland Lebrun
Attachments
July 5 2016 letter to MTC
March 2019 letter to the Caltrain Board
CC
SFCTA Board of Directors
VTA Board of Directors
MTC Commissioners
Caltrain CAC
Caltrain BAC
SFCTA CAC
VTA CAC
Roland Lebrun July 5 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 375 Beale Street San Francisco CA 94105-2066 Dear Honorable Chair Cortese and MTC Commissioners, Further to my comments during the June Commission Meeting, the intent of this letter is to substantiate and elaborate on the concerns I expressed about the Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) project, specifically the cost and reduced capacity of the proposed Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) railcars (550-seat trains replacing 650-seat trains operating at 158% of capacity). This letter concludes with a recommendation that MTC and the FTA suspend all funding and initiate an independent investigation into the Caltrain EMU procurement process. Background March 2012 LTK Engineering (LTK) releases a document entitled “Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis” http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Final-Caltrain-California+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf Section 3.3 Rolling Stock on page 28 states “Caltrain is planning to use 8 car trains to augment the seating capacity of an existing 5 car train”. The document additionally states (page 38). “To ensure conservative simulation results, all trains were simulated with a full seated load of 948 passengers (for an 8-car EMU) “. March 6th 2014 The JPB awards a total of $42.3M in contracts to LTK, including a $33.2M EMU Vehicle Consultant Service contract. http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Agendas/2014/3-6-14+JPB+Agenda.pdf (item #13). It should be noted that LTK were the sole respondent to the RFP and there is strong circumstantial evidence suggesting that LTK were responsible for drafting this RFP.
May 22 2014 Caltrain issues a Request for Information (RFI) to the EMU manufacturers http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/EMU_RFI.pdf Section 6.6 “EMUs must satisfy JPB’s fleet management and operations service plan needs” shows a 6-car EMU configuration with capacity for 600 seats, 48 bikes and 2 ADA bathrooms.
May 20 2015 Board workshop presentation highlighting 650-seat trains operating at over 150% of capacity during the peak summer season:
August 2015 Caltrain releases a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the EMU manufacturers https://www.dropbox.com/sh/az34k161d28ah78/AACzwbjBH37v79hHRow8r2LZa?dl=0 Volume 3 (Tech specs) APPENDIX A (page 468) states that seated capacity (AW1) is “assumed to be 550 passengers” (100 seats less than trains operating at over 150% of capacity). May 5th 2016 Caltrain releases annual passenger counts showing massive overcrowding on 762-seat bi-level and 650-seat Gallery trains. It should be noted that Caltrain annual passenger counts are (inexplicably) collected during the low season (February).
July 1st 2016 Caltrain announces that the only responder to the EMU RFP is Stadler Rail and that it intends to proceed with a $551M procurement of 16 6-car KISS EMUs with 550 seats (before removing approximately 100 seats to allow access to another set of doors).
Issues 1) Capacity This EMU procurement cannot possibility meet Caltrain’s present let alone future capacity requirements (450 seats/train vs. 948 modeled back in March 2012). 2) Costs This procurement is approximately $225M (70%) above similar procurements in Europe
Client Manufacturer/model Year Contract ($M) #units Unit cost Reference
SNCF Lux Stadler KISS 2010 $84 24 3.49 http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news98915.html
Deutsche Bahn Bombardier Twindexx 2011 $483 137 3.53 http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bombardier-twindexx-double-deck-trains/
Deutsche Bahn Bombardier Twindexx 2012 $210 64 3.28 http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bombardier-twindexx-double-deck-trains/
STIF & SNCF Bombardier Omneo 2015 $442 168 2.63 http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsstif-and-sncf-order-regio-2n-double-deck-trains-from-bombardier-4482377/
AeroExpress Stadler KISS 2016 $205 62 3.31 http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsstadler-rail-provide-11-double-decker-trains-for-aeroexpress-4905867
SNCF Bombardier Omneo 2016 $38 16 2.38 http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsbombardier-wins-contract-to-supply-additional-regio-2n-double-deck-trains-in-france-4813563
Caltrain Stadler KISS 2016 $551 96 5.74 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Agendas/2016/2016-07-07+JPB+BOD+Agenda+Packet.pdf
3) Non-competitive bidding (Stadler was the only responsive bid). This is identical to what happened at SMART and eBART. Recommendations - Launch an immediate investigation into the procurement process - Suspend any funding pending the outcome of the investigation - Reach out to the 5 manufacturers, who responded to the RFI and inquire as to the events that led them not to respond to the RFP - Invite Stadler to provide a comparative breakdown of recent Stadler KISS procurements - Determine if the $225M discrepancy is related to customization for High Speed Rail and revise CHSRA’s contribution to the funding package accordingly - Initiate an independent Caltrain capacity analysis to inform on the next steps - Consider appointing an interim entity responsible for Caltrain administration (per Section 6.B of the 1996 Peninsula Corridor Project Joint Powers Agreement) http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Public/JPA_Agreement_and_Amendment_10-03-1996.pdf Respectfully submitted for your consideration Sincerely, Roland Lebrun
CC SFCTA Board of Directors VTA Board of Directors Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Caltrain Board of Directors High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors SFCTA CAC Caltrain CAC Caltrain BPAC
Page 1 of 2
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION: CALLING FOR INCREASED CAPACITY AND BETTER CAR LAYOUT ON ELECTRIFIED CALTRAIN
WHEREAS, Caltrain, the San Francisco Peninsula rail transit service, provides a vital public
transportation link serving the City and County of San Francisco and has provided onboard carriage of
bicycles since 1992; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain’s onboard bicycle service allows passengers to reach their origin stations and their
final destinations without using motorized transportation on either end of their commutes, taking the
burden off heavily subsidized feeder buses and shuttles; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain’s onboard bicycle service is socially and economically beneficial in eliminating
reliance on the automobile, thereby effecting reductions in petroleum use, traffic congestion, pollution,
and climate change; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain’s plans to modernize its service with electrified trains in 2021; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain’s onboard bicycle service reduces demand for expensive new parking lots or
parking structures, and Caltrain predicts that a number of its parking lots will be unable to handle
demand after Caltrain has been electrified; and
WHEREAS, 16% of Caltrain passengers bring their bikes on board and 1% park their bikes at the
stations according to the 2014 Caltrain Onboard Passenger Survey; and
WHEREAS, 88% of bikes-on-board passengers need their bikes at both ends of their trips according to
the 2016 Bike Car Intercept Survey; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain’s onboard bicycle service is so popular that customers with bicycles routinely get
left behind on the platform or ‘bumped’ due to insufficient onboard bike capacity while all walk-on
passengers are allowed to board; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the Joint Powers Board unanimously approved an increase in bike capacity on
electrified trains with an onboard ratio of 8:1 seats-to-bike-spaces, overriding Caltrain staff’s
recommendation of 9:1 (same as today); and
WHEREAS, the difference between 9:1 and 8:1 corresponds to an 11% increase in bike capacity, or 84
bike spaces and 672 seats per train; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain staff plans only 72 bike spaces and 567 seats per six-car electrified train,
technically meeting the 8:1 ratio but reducing bike capacity compared with an average of 77 bike
spaces per train today; and
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, six-car diesel trains today have an average of 741 seats per train; and
WHEREAS, in 2021, Caltrain plans to run a mixed fleet with 33% seven-car diesel trains having 910
seats and 72 bike spaces per train to cover up the inadequate seat count of electrified trains; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain staff obfuscates the capacity loss per electrified train by focusing on one more
train per peak hour in 2021; and
WHEREAS, the additional train in 2021 will result in only 10.3% more seats per peak hour, while
walk-on ridership is projected to be 23.9% higher based on the average annual increases over the last
decade; and
WHEREAS, the additional train in 2021 will result in only 12.5% more bike spaces per peak hour, while
bike boardings are projected to be 42.9% higher based on the average annual increases over the last
decade; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain staff is planning a car layout with no dedicated seats within view of bikes – only
folding seats, bike hooks to hang bikes, and wheelchair space all in the same location; and
WHEREAS, bicyclists need to sit within view of their bikes to guard against theft; and
WHEREAS, Caltrain electrification is a $2 billion program that will have woefully inadequate passenger
capacity in 2021 especially for bikes-on-board passengers, and staff is proposing an untenable car
layout, and staff’s plan does not meet the board’s 2015 directive for more bike capacity per train;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee urges Caltrain to
launch electrified service with electrified train sets of at least seven cars and at least 84 bike spaces per
train distributed among all cars to allow seats within view of bikes, no hanging bikes, and dedicated
wheelchair space; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee recommends
adoption and prompt implementation of the Draft 2017 Bicycle Parking Management Plan to encourage
passengers who do not need to bring their bikes on board to park their bikes at the stations.
_________________________
Mary Kay Chin, Vice-chair
ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 23, 2017 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Brask, Chin, Deffarges, Orland, Serafini, Taliaferro, Warner, Wells
ABSENT: Brandt, Hill, Mendoza