JAnuargyj January 8, 2014
1:30 – 3:30 pm
Santa Clara County's
Traffic Operations Center
1505 Schallenberger Drive
San Jose, CA 95112
Minutes
Transportation Policy Committee Meeting
Click for original background Agenda & Materials at the http://svlg.org/policy-areas/transportation/transportation-committee/transportation-committee-only (password BARTtoSV)
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Transportation Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m.
Transportation and Housing Committee Members:
Ron Gonzales, Prescencia (TPC co-chair)
Mark Oty, UPS
Steve Joesten, Infinera
Otto Melara, Apple Inc.
Ramses Madou, Stanford
Paul Shepherd, Cargill
Melissa Zucker, Solaria
Jeral Poskey, Google
Matthew Jones, ICF
Denny Yau, San Jose State University
Jonathan Fishpaw, Republic Urban
Patty Pine, eBay
Stan Nakaso, Lockheed Martin
Call-ins:
Will Kempton, Transportation CA
Chris Wall, City National Bank (TPC co-chair)
Jessica Herrera, Facebook
Monica Wall, Facebook
Santa Clara County Roads:
Dan Collen
Dawn Cameron
Eileen Goodwin, Apex
Staff:
Jessica Zenk, Senior Director of Transportation
Bena Chang, Director for Housing & Transportation
Audrey Shiramizu, Transportation Coordinator
2. TPC Minutes Approval
Motion—Melissa Zucker / Second Steve Joesten—Carried unanimously.
Approve the minutes of the December 2013 TPC meeting.
3. California Road Repair Act – 2014 Ballot Measure (Brief) (Action Item)
Jessica Zenk introduced Will Kempton, Executive Director of Transportation California. The California Road Repair Act is a proposed constitutional amendment that would provide a new source of transportation funding. The proposed amendment would implement an annual California Road Repair Fee on all vehicles, equal to 1% of each vehicle’s value in ¼% increments phased over four years. The revenue generated would be allocated in varying percentages to cities, counties, the State Highway System, and public transit. The new revenue would be constitutionally dedicated for road, bridge, and transit system maintenance and transit vehicle replacement only.
At this point, Transportation California has not yet made the final decision to put the measure on the 2014 ballot. The final decision will be made after more polling and research.
Questions & Discussion
· Ron: Vehicle fee was last raised during Gray Davis. It was one of the reasons he was taken out of office. Have you talked to the Gov. about this?
· Will: Not directly. This is different than Davis’s car tax for general fund purposes. Also not elevating VLF to same degree (2%). Currently, at 0.65%. Proposal: go to an amount equivalent to 1.65% and goes directly to transportation. People are receptive to investing money into existing systems.
· Ron: How were the revenue allocation percentages derived?
· Will: Based on biggest needs in terms of condition at local level. 50% should go to local road system. And 40% to state highway. 10% for transit/RR –hopeful that other parts of this package provide boost for transit/RR.
· Paul: What deems ‘highest need’? Existing protocol?
· Will: Requirements in state statute for how money should be spent. This is unique because all revenue goes toward maintenance.
· Paul: Why 40% for state highway system?
· Will: Caltrans state highway and operations program view it on a needs basis statewide. Returns to source so that some money gets spent on every county. But 40% goes to statewide.
· Chris: (1) Why 60/40 split? Not 50/50? (2) First bullet point (see brief): 25% based on city pop – should it be more based on highest use of particular road?
· Will: Used existing formulae to get those distributions for Southern California and Northern California respectively. Accepted by Counties and other stakeholders statewide. Every city will get at least $400K annually, no matter the size of city. Regarding 25% to counties, 25% to cities – that’s also an accepted formula for how those funds are distributed.
· Ramses: Why a fee on vehicles instead of another, like VMT?
· Will: The gas tax is losing potency as a way to raise money. The voters are not yet ready for VMT tax. Example – the gas tax was 91% opposed in Riverside. Currently, the best support is for VLF.
· Ramses: Any concerns that people will see this as like a gas tax?
· Will: Tough to assess. However, if the voters have a good understanding that the money is for a dedicated purpose with built in accountability, it makes a positive difference.
· Ron: Will Transportation CA and Alliance for Jobs be running the campaign?
· Will: We will hire appropriate resources to run it. Transportation CA and Alliance are the initiative proponents.
Will Kempton left the discussion.
· Jessica: If they decide to move forward, should we support it? Need more info?
· Ron: Signature gathering campaigns can be improved by groups like this.
· Paul: Why wouldn’t legislature vote on this?
· Jessica: They have been hesitant to do anything that even seems like a tax – including allowing others to tax themselves. The Transportation CA package also includes lowering voter threshold. Allows people to vote for tax at 55% threshold instead of 2/3.
· Ron: So, this additionally lowers threshold?
· Jessica: Not this one exactly, but part of the same package would.
· Paul: Will said part will go to transit. In the Bay Area, it might not be looked upon favorably.
· Chris: The 10% was added based on feedback from the Bay Area.
· Paul: How to determine the market value of a new car?
· Ramses: Based on actual purchase price that gets recorded, and depreciation.
· Chris: Sounds like they’re following standard protocol of what is distributed. Does it make sense to have different breakdowns written into this? Might make it riskier?
· Ron: Voters like all these breakdowns. More details results in more ‘yes’ votes.
· Jessica: Is 25% disproportionately high for counties?
· Paul: It’s important to show the average auto owner what this tax means compared to the Davis tax.
· Mark: 25% for the county is too high. When looking at county roads vs. city roads, seems disproportionate.
· Ramses: Instead of using previous data, use actual usage of roads data?
· Paul: Counties argue that they have more roads.
· Ron: When we think of counties – compare Santa Clara vs. Merced. Differing of county road percentages.
· Jessica: We have specific feedback to give them: Instead of fixed percentages, allocate local and countywide funding based on a mixture of population, road miles, and usage?
· Ron: The title & summary is on its way – can they change it at this point?
· Bena: There are political dances – not sure what we can change.
· Paul: Perhaps we can make these suggestions and they can put it in their polling.
Action: Ron: No action yet. Suggest coming back to it in February/March to get an idea of where the signatures are at, and then defer action at a later time. However, let them know that we’re very encouraged so far.
4. HOV/HOT Lanes on Highway 101 in San Mateo County – TransForm Proposal (Feedback Requested)
Jessica Zenk introduced a proposal by TransForm to study optimized HOT lanes in San Mateo County as a strategy on Highway 101 to make the best use of highway lanes, reduce traffic, and fund expansions of public transit, vanpools, and other affordable and accessible transit alternatives. Currently, most of San Mateo County (SMC) has no HOV/HOT lanes.
Questions & Discussion
· Ron: Is this one lane for both HOV and HOT?
· Jessica: Yes, drivers can either carpool or pay a toll to enter.
· Ron: Is carpool is free? Yes. 2+ considered carpool.
· Ron: What about enforcement? It is spotty.
· Bena: For 237, if HOV/HOT is too congested, drivers cannot pay to get in.
· Jessica: There are 2 questions: political and technical.
· Ron: Who does the studies?
· Jessica: CMA, C/CAG
· Steve: It’s like metering lights. People were initially against them, but they work.
· Ron: What is SMC’s feedback?
· Jessica: It’s going to the board of C/CAG instead of SMC. Sometime in late Jan./Feb.
· Jerald: What is the cost? Saving money is great, but speed is the thing. Can be a quick solution in 4-5 years, affordable too.
· Steve: Why not study it?
· Jerald: If doesn’t get support, it’s a clear message saying don’t try anything new.
· Melissa: What are other revenues from HOT? Are they significant?
· Jessica: Only have 2 HOT in the Bay – 237 and 680. 237 is operating beyond expectations but not making money. Idea is to repay capital first. The long-term goal is generating additional money to pay off other things.
· Melissa: Ideally it’s a push for transit, so we won’t even miss the taken lane.
· Ron: Current HOV ends at county line.
· Jessica: Currently goes to Redwood City.
· Ron: If they’re going to study this, why not all Santa Clara County?
· Jessica: Already HOT lanes in the works in Santa Clara County.
· Ron: Was there already a study of use of HOV lanes?
· Jessica: Some stretches, pretty full already. There’s variable pricing.
· Bena: 101 is impacted.
· Ron: So are we willing to support a study? Who is paying?
· Jessica: C/CAG already doing it. It would be incremental costs.
· Jessica Herrera/Monica: Makes sense to push the study and see results.
· Ron: Hoping that we don’t end up with a transportation system that works as poorly as our housing system. Issues of inequity.
Motion to support the study— Ramses Madou / Second Melissa Zucker and Steve Joesten—Carried unanimously. Will pass the information to TransForm.
5. Countywide Expressway Plan 2040 (see handouts from meeting)
Presented by Dawn Cameron, country transportation planner, Dan Collen, Deputy Director of the Roads and Airport Department, and Eileen Goodwin from Apex.
County Transportation Planning Studies includes 3 different studies:
1. Lawrence Study - feeds into Expressway Plan 2040
2. Roads Master Plan
3. General Plan Circulation Element Update
The MTC has set a deadline that all counties must update their General Plan by 1/2015 to receive Federal Transportation funds. Additionally, VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan 2045 is also in the works.
Questions & Discussion
· Ron: For the Lawrence Project, do all 3 models have elevation below grade?
· Dawn: No.
· Ron: Is it like Central? Dan: No.
· Ron: It ends at Arques Ave., but the bottleneck is at Oakmead.
· Dawn: We will need to look at that as well as other roads and see what they’ll need to do on rest of Lawrence.
· Jerald: Are there bike components to each alternative?
· Eileen: Each has pedestrian and bike components.
· Jessica: Any matrix of how these all compare/work for each mode?
· Dawn: The next stage will show matrices of comparison. Off hand – Alternative 1 is the most costly and poses the most constructive challenges. But it also the most positive in community integration. There are community-wide meetings in Feb. We’ve been seeing 50+ at these Lawrence meetings.
· Eileen: Montague was terrible – Got a lot of investment in the past 10 years and can see how it’s paying off.
· Paul: Will Alt. 1 require pumps?
· Dawn: Yes, because there’s a high water table.
· Paul: Pumps go out, and with brown outs – highways can go under water.
· Jerald: Biking should be treated well – it is the best way to move people in his company.
· Dan: There’re plans to build something for bikes/pedestrians where there aren’t already accessible roads for them.
· Dawn: Can now cross local streets instead of crossing something 12 lanes wide.
· Ron: When is the red zone?
· Dawn: For Lawrence- due to happen by Feb. community meeting.
· Ron: What is the community feedback?
· Eileen: Neighbors like Alt.1 – provides calmer local streets. Alt. 2 – concerns of what they’ll see. Alt. 3: What does it mean - more congestion in front of my house? The bike community has been responsive. They push for any implementation ASAP, just as long as something is fixed for their community.
· Dawn: Neighbors don’t want cars on local streets.
· Jessica: Any Caltrain feedback?
· Dawn: We’re mostly working with VTA. We’re not seeing many opportunities in this study to change. They just don’t want us to make it worse.
· Denny: Alt. 2 looks the least confusing and most user-friendly for residents/visitors.
· Jessica: Signage is important. Especially for bikers/pedestrians trying to find train stations.
· Denny: Freeway signage is important, too.
· Eileen: Rural roads? Any connections to those? UPS Feedback?
· Mark: Yes. Our UPS Safety Committees can connect with the team.
Action: Ron: Look forward to hearing more later on, will continue following along.
6. Announcements
· Reminder: Corporate memberships available for Bike Share.
· Co-Chair meeting on Friday 1/10 for 2014 TPC topics. Contact Jessica for any regional/county topics that you’d like to know more about.
· Work plan approved and voted 3rd priority from the top.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 3:08. Tour of Traffic Operations Center followed (optional).