Agenda - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - VTA

CALL TO ORDER 

1. ROLL CALL 

TRANSIT PLANNING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 

2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: 

Thursday, February 16, 2012 

4:00 PM 

VTA Conference Room B-104 

3331 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 

AGENDA 

This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on 

any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not 

permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except 

under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed 

on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff 

for reply in writing. 

3. ORDERS OF THE DAY 

CONSENT AGENDA 

4. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2012. 

5. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive FY 2012 Second Quarter Transit Operations 

Performance Report. 

6. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Semi-Annual Report for the 2000 Measure A 

Transit Improvement Program through December 2011. 

REGULAR AGENDA 

7. Receive a report regarding the Committee for Transit Accessibility Activities. 

(Verbal Report) (Eljas) 

3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1927 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 

Transit Planning & Operations Committee February 16, 2012 

8. ACTION ITEM - Authorize the General Manager to procure 70 Toyota Prius vehicles for 

paratransit service using the State of California purchasing contract in an amount not to 

exceed $ 1,753,000. 

9. ACTION ITEM - Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Stevens 

Creek Quarry Construction, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $894,200 for 

the construction of the Alum Rock Fish Passage. 

10. ACTION ITEM - Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract for procuring 

services for engineering and preparation of procurement documents related to the 

Campus Area, Roadway and Parking Structures for the Milpitas and Berryessa Stations 

of the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX) Project. 

Note: Due to the timing of the consultant interviews, the consultant selection process is 

not yet completed. Following interviews and completion of the evaluation process, a 

revised memorandum with staff’s recommendation will be provided to the Committee. 

11. ACTION ITEM - Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to submit and 

execute grant applications and agreements, certifications, assurances, and other 

documents as necessary to the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) to 

receive $3,344,129 from the FY11-12 California Transit Security Grant Program- 

California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF). 

12. INFORMATION ITEM - Update on Clipper Fare Collection Project. 

13. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive the Quarterly Marketing Report. 

14. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive an update on the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension 

(SVBX) Real Estate Program. 

OTHER ITEMS 

15. Receive a report on the January 2012 Monthly Ridership and Fare Revenue Performance. 

(Verbal Report) 

16. Other Significant items for Board Action 

The following are items for Board consideration on March 1, 2012: 

• Programming Actions in Support of US-101/Capitol Interchange. (Verbal Report) 

17. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration. 

18. Review Committee Work Plan. (D. Smith) 

19. Committee Staff Report. (D. Smith) 

Page 2


Transit Planning & Operations Committee February 16, 2012 

20. Chairperson’s Report. (Herrera) 

21. Determine Consent Agenda for the March 1, 2012 Board of Directors Meeting. 

22. ANNOUNCEMENTS 

23. ADJOURN 

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those requiring 

accommodations or accessible media for this meeting should notify the Board Secretary’s 

Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 321-5680 or e-mail: 

board.secretary@vta.org, (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s Homepage is located on 

the Web at: http://www.vta.org/ or visit us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/scvta. 

Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section 

84308) In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member 

shall accept, solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or 

her agent, or from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a 

license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board 

Member who has received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of 

more than $250 from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on 

the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way 

attempt to use his or her official position to influence the decision. A party to a 

proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution in 

an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the party, or his or 

her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a contribution 

of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three months 

following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding. The 

foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308 and 

parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of the 

law. 

All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board 

Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the 

Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on 

VTA’s website at http://www.vta.org/ and also at the meeting. 

NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY 

ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA. 

Page 3

Transit Planning & Operations Committee 

Thursday, February 16, 2012 

4:00 PM 

VTA Conference Room B-104 

3331 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 

ADDENDUM TO AGENDA 

11.X. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive a report on low-income fare discount analysis.

CALL TO ORDER 


Thursday, January 19, 2012 

MINUTES 

The Regular Meeting of the Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee was 

called to order at 4:09 p.m. by Chairperson Herrera in Conference Room 

B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, 

California. 

1. ROLL CALL 

Attendee Name Title Status 

Margaret Abe-Koga Member Present 

Rose Herrera Chairperson Present 

Sam Liccardo Member Present 

Nancy Pyle Member Present 

Gail A. Price Alternate Member N/A 

*Alternates do not serve unless participating as a Member. 

A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared. 

2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 

Pat Plant, People Acting in Community Together (PACT), thanked VTA for initial 

interest and proposed study on expanded transportation for low income people. 

REGULAR AGENDA 

11. Solar Installation Update 

The Agenda was taken out of order. 

Michael Hursh, Deputy Director Operations, provided an overview of the staff report. 

On order of Chairperson Herrera and there being no objection, the Committee 

received the Solar Installation update. 


12. Regional Bike Share Pilot Program 

Aiko Cuenco, Transportation Planner, provided a brief overview of the staff report and a 

presentation entitled, “Bay Area Bike Sharing Pilot Program.” 

On order of Chairperson Herrera and there being no objection the Committee received 

an update on the Regional Bike Share Pilot Program. 

OTHER ITEMS 

13. December 2011 Monthly Ridership and Fare Revenue Performance 

Joonie Tolosa, Manager, Operations Analysis and Reporting, provided the December 

2011 Monthly Ridership and Fare Revenue performance report. 


received the December 2011 Monthly Ridership and Fare Revenue Performance Report. 

15. Committee Work Plan 


reviewed the Committee Work Plan. 

18. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 

Kathy Paul, Interim General Counsel, noted that Closed Session Item 18.B and 18.C will 

be removed from the agenda. 

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION at: 4:31 p.m. 

Member Abe-Koga arrived at 4:45 p.m. and entered Closed Session. 

A quorum was established. 

A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 

[Government Code Section 54956.8] 

Property: Acquisition of construction staging area and partial fee of 

the real property located at 555 East Capitol Avenue, 

Milpitas CA 95035 

Agency Negotiator: Bijal Patel, Deputy Director, Property Development & 

Management 

Negotiating Parties: Armand H. and Joan Joyce Kunde, Trustees of the Kunde 

2006 Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2006 

Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 

Transit Planning & Operations Committee Minutes Page 2 of 6 January 19, 2012

B. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 


Property: Acquisition of partial fee and temporary construction 

easement of the real property located at Curtis Avenue in 

the City of Milpitas 


Management 

Negotiating Parties: Parc Metropolitan Community Association 


This item was removed from Closed Session. 

C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 



easement of the real property located at 1428 Falcon Drive 

in City of Milpitas 


Management 

Negotiating Parties: JWMFE Milpitas TP, LLC 



RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION at: 4:48 p.m. 

19. CLOSED SESSION REPORT 

A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 


Property: Acquisition of construction staging area and partial fee of 

the real property located at 555 East Capitol Avenue, 

Milpitas CA 95035 


Management 

Negotiating Parties: Armand H. and Joan Joyce Kunde, Trustees of the Kunde 

2006 Revocable Trust dated May 16, 2006 


Ms. Paul indicated there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session. 


B. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 



easement of the real property located at Curtis Avenue in 

the City of Milpitas 


Management 

Negotiating Parties: Parc Metropolitan Community Association 



C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators 



easement of the real property located at 1428 Falcon Drive 

in City of Milpitas 


Management 

Negotiating Parties: JWMFE Milpitas TP, LLC 



3. ORDERS OF THE DAY 

Chairperson Herrera requested the Agenda Item # 17., Chairperson’s Report, be heard 

before the Consent Agenda. 

M/S/C (Pyle/Abe-Koga) to approve the orders of the Day. 

17. Chairperson’s Report 

Chairperson Herrera welcomed everyone to the first TPO meeting of the year. She 

indicated her excitement for the upcoming year and provided a report, highlighting: 1) 

Committee goals, 2) Improvements along the corridor, 3) New buses, 4) Rail 

rehabilitation, and 5) The Committee’s study to make services more available to low 

income riders. 

CONSENT AGENDA 

4. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 17, 201l 

M/S/C (Abe-Koga/Pyle) to approve the regular meeting Minutes of November 17, 201l. 

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 


5. Regular Meeting Minutes of December 15, 2011 

M/S/C (Abe-Koga/Pyle) to approve the regular meeting Minutes of December 15, 2011. 

6. 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program Progress Report. 

M/S/C (Abe-Koga/Pyle) to receive the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement 

Program Progress Report - December 2011. 

REGULAR AGENDA (Continued) 

7. Committee for Transit Accessibility Activities 

There was no Committee for Transit Accessibility report. 

8. Elect Committee’s Vice Chairperson for Calendar Year 2012 

Chairperson Herrera opened the nominations from the floor for the position of Transit 

Planning and Operations Committee Vice Chairperson for 2012. 

Member Abe-Koga nominated Member Pyle for the position of Transit Planning and 

Operations Committee Vice Chairperson for 2012. 

M/S/C (Abe-Koga/Pyle) to elect Member Pyle as the Transit Planning and Operations 

Committee Vice Chairperson for 2012 for Calendar Year 2012. 

9. 2012 Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee Meeting Schedule 

M/S/C (Pyle/Abe-Koga) to approve the 2012 Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) 

Committee Meeting Schedule. 

Member Liccardo arrived at 4:53 p.m. 

10. El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project 

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager, provided an overview of the staff 

report and presented the elements of the project, results of the outreach to several cities, 

and the next steps. 

The Committee discussed whether this project should be pursued now or after 

development in El Camino Real materializes. 


received the Preliminary Investment Strategy for the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit 

Project that features dedicated lanes, from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Showers 

Drive in Mountain View, with mixed flow operation in other locations. There will be 


sixteen stations located in the median in the dedicated lane segment and as bulb-outs in 

the mixed-flow segments, as illustrated in the attached map. The Preliminary Investment 

Strategy also includes a bicycle lane in San Jose and on dedicated bus lanes segments. 

OTHER ITEMS (Continued) 

14. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration 

There were no Items of Concern and Referral to Administration. 

16. Committee Staff Report 

Dan Smith, TPO Committee Liaison and Chief Operations Officer, provided a written 

report to the Committee. 


reviewed the Committee Staff Report. 

20. Determine Consent Agenda for the February 2, 2012 Board of Directors Meeting 

CONSENT: 

Agenda Item #6., Receive the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program 

Progress Report - December 2011. 

REGULAR: 

Agenda Item #10., Receive the Preliminary Investment Strategy for the El Camino Real 

Bus Rapid Transit Project that features dedicated lanes, from Lafayette Street in Santa 

Clara to Showers Drive in Mountain View, with mixed flow operation in other locations. 

There will be sixteen stations located in the median in the dedicated lane segment and as 

bulb-outs in the mixed-flow segments, as illustrated in the attached map. The Preliminary 

Investment Strategy also includes a bicycle lane in San Jose and on dedicated bus lanes 

segments. 

21. ANNOUNCEMENTS 

There were no Announcements. 

22. ADJOURNMENT 

On order of Chairperson Herrera and there being no objection, the meeting was 

adjourned at 5:29 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Menominee McCarter, Board Assistant 

Office of the Board Secretary 


BOARD MEMORANDUM 

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 


THROUGH: General Manager, Michael T. Burns 

FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Donald A. Smith Jr. 

Date: January 30, 2012 

Current Meeting: February 16, 2012 

Board Meeting: N/A 

SUBJECT: Transit Operations Performance Report - FY2012 Quarter 2 

BACKGROUND: 

FOR INFORMATION ONLY 

The Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report for FY 2012 presents the second 

quarter's (July 2011-December 2011) key performance information regarding the operation of 

the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). This report is routinely produced after each quarter 

and at the end of the fiscal year. A detailed summary of the FY 2012 Second Quarter Transit 

Operations Performance Report follows. 

DISCUSSION: 

Summary of Performance 

Ridership (page 7 of the report) 

Bus ridership through the first six months of FY 2012 totaled 16.0 million, a 3.1% increase 

compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 103,963 

up 3.7%. 

Light rail ridership recorded 5.3 million boardings through the second quarter of FY 2012, an 

increase of 4.1% compared to the same period last year. Average weekday ridership was also up 

by 4.1% from 32,035 recorded last year to 33,338 this year. 

Overall, FY 2012 System ridership (bus and rail) was up by 3.4%. Average weekday ridership 

increased by 3.8%, from 132,293 last year to 137,301 this year. 

Key Performance Indicators (page 6 of the report) 

The daily service reliability performance during the first six months of FY 2012 was 99.70%, 

slightly lower than last year’s 99.72%, but exceeding the established goal of 99.55%. Bus 

3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1927 · Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300 

5

ecorded 9,814 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 7.2% increase compared to 

the same period in FY 2011, exceeding the established goal of 8,000 miles. 

Light Rail miles between major mechanical schedule losses recorded 30,027 fell by 17.8% 

compared to the same period in FY 2012. The 12-month trend miles between mechanical 

scheduled loss was 35,568 miles, a 12.9% decrease from last year. Unscheduled absenteeism for 

Operator and Maintenance personnel met established goals with the exceptions of Bus 

Maintenance. 

Through FY 2012 second quarter, Light Rail on-time performance was 90.3%, up from last 

year’s 87.8%. Bus on-time performance recorded 86.4%, down from last year’s 88.2%. 

Paratransit (page 20 of the report) 

Through the first six months of FY 2012, Paratransit ridership decreased by 6.2% from 410,820 

in FY 2011 to 385,240 this year. Ridership declined as the number of active Paratransit 

customers decreased 6.2%, new Paratransit enrollments have decreased 6.9%, the number of 

Paratransit eligible customers has decreased 8.8%, and seniors using Senior Transportation rides 

before they begin to use the ADA Paratransit trips. In addition, declines in eligibility are 

partially due to other transportation services provided by Outreach. 

The net operating cost during the first six months of FY 2012 was $9.15 million, down 6.5% 

compared to the same period last fiscal year. Costs declined due to ridership decreases, the 

ride-sharing efforts with other health and human service agencies and the use of fuel efficient 

vehicles. 

The net operating cost per Paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2012 was 

$23.76, 0.3% less than the $23.84 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2011, and meeting the 

established goal of $27.00. 

Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 6 of the report) 

VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services ridership results are as follows: 

• Dumbarton Express ridership was 136,033, up by 4.0%. 

• Highway 17 Express ridership was 167,111, up 22.0%. 

• Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 16,771, up by 6.8%. 

• ACE ridership was 377,906, up by 11.3%. 

• Caltrain ridership was 6.8 million, up by 9.2%. 

• Caltrain shuttle ridership in Santa Clara County was 529,697, up 42.8%. 

• ACE shuttle ridership was 123,189, up by 11.5%. 

• IBM light rail shuttle ridership recorded 12,122 riders, up 10.1%. 

Prepared By: Joonie Tolosa 

Memo No. 3175 

Page 2 of 2 

5

Transit 

Operations 

Performance 

Report 

5.a 

2012 Second Quarter Report 

(July 1, 2011-December 31, 2011)

5.a

Transit 

Operations 

Performance 

Report 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Report 

(July 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011) 

5.a


FY 2012 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS page 

Executive Summary 

Summary of Performance 1 

Event Highlights 3 

Key Performance Indicators 6 

Ridership Summary 7 

Route Performance 

Boardings Per Revenue Hour 8 

Average Peak Load (Express) 12 

Route Productivity 13 

Paratransit Operating Statistics 20 

Glossary 

Prepared by: Operations Analysis, Reporting & Systems 

5.a

Executive 

Summary 

5.a

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE 


Ridership (page 7 of the report) 

Bus ridership through the first six months of FY 2012 totaled 16.0 million, a 3.1% increase 

compared to the same period of the previous fiscal year. Average weekday ridership was 103,963 

up 3.7%. 

Light rail ridership recorded 5.3 million boardings through the second quarter of FY 2012, an 

increase of 4.1% compared to the same period last year. Average weekday ridership was also up 

by 4.1% from 32,035 recorded last year to 33,338 this year. 

Overall, FY 2012 System ridership (bus and rail) was up by 3.4%. Average weekday ridership 

increased by 3.8%, from 132,293 last year to 137,301 this year. 

Key Performance Indicators (page 6 of the report) 

The daily service reliability performance during the first six months of FY 2012 was 99.70%, 

slightly lower than last year’s 99.72%, but exceeding the established goal of 99.55%. Bus 

recorded 9,814 miles between major mechanical schedule losses, a 7.2% increase compared to 

the same period in FY 2011, exceeding the established goal of 8,000 miles. 

Light Rail miles between major mechanical schedule losses recorded 30,027 fell by 17.8% 

compared to the same period in FY 2012. The 12-month trend miles between mechanical 

scheduled loss was 35,568 miles, a 12.9% decrease from last year. Unscheduled absenteeism for 

Operator and Maintenance personnel met established goals with the exceptions of Bus 

Maintenance. 

Through FY 2012 second quarter, Light Rail on-time performance was 90.3%, up from last 

year’s 87.8%. Bus on-time performance recorded 86.4%, down from last year’s 88.2%. 

Paratransit (page 20 of the report) 

Through the first six months of FY 2012, Paratransit ridership decreased by 6.2% from 410,820 

in FY 2011 to 385,240 this year. Ridership declined as the number of active Paratransit 

customers decreased 6.2%, new Paratransit enrollments have decreased 6.9%, and the number of 

Paratransit eligible customers has decreased 8.8%. In addition, declines in eligibility are partially 

due to other transportation services provided by Outreach. 

The net operating cost during the first six months of FY 2012 was $9.15 million, down 6.5% 

compared to the same period last fiscal year. Costs declined due to ridership decreases, the 

ride-sharing efforts with other health and human service agencies and the use of fuel efficient 

vehicles. 

The net operating cost per Paratransit passenger trip through the second quarter of FY 2012 was 

$23.76, 0.3% less than the $23.84 net cost per trip recorded in FY 2011, and meeting the 

established goal of $27.00. 

1 

5.a

Inter-Agency Partners and Contracted Services (page 6 of the report) 

VTA’s Inter-agency partners and contracted services ridership results are as follows: 

• Dumbarton Express ridership was 136,033, up by 4.0%. 

• Highway 17 Express ridership was 167,111, up 22.0%. 

• Monterey-San Jose Express ridership was 16,771, up by 6.8%. 

• ACE ridership was 377,906, up by 11.3%. 

• Caltrain ridership was 6.8 million, up by 9.2%. 

• ACE shuttle ridership was 123,189, up by 11.5%. 

• IBM light rail shuttle ridership recorded 12,122 riders, up 10.1%. 

2 

5.a


EVENT HIGHLIGHTS 

FYTD 2012 Second Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report 

(July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011) 

July 4, 2011 – San Jose July 4 th Fireworks canceled. 

July 11, 2011 – VTA implemented service changes to improve system-wide on-time 

performance, reliability, and passenger connectivity to Caltrain and other public transit systems. 

July 14, 2011 – VTA light rail trains offered free 4G wireless network. 

July, 2011 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 10.3%. 

July, 2011 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.83 a gallon. 

August 2, 2011 – VTA supported National Night Out Community Event in San Jose area. 

August 2, 2011 – The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing executives, 

reported index of manufacturing activity fell 50.9% in July from 55.3% in June. The reading was 

the lowest since July 2009. 

August 11, 2011 – Google announced it struck a deal to lease four buildings in Sunnyvale to 

accommodate as many as 2,900 employees. 

August 12 to 14, 2011 – VTA encouraged people to take public transit and provided extra 

services to AT&T San Jose Jazz Festival. Per San Jose Mercury News, estimated San Jose Jazz 

festival attendance was over 100,000. 

August 15, 2011 – VTA completed installing new electronic fareboxes on its bus fleet. 

August 19, 2011 – Per Associated Press, a consumer survey showed confidence in economy fell 

to the lowest level in 31 years and discouraging economic data from around the globe have 

heightened fears that another recession is on the way. 

August 23, 2011 – Facebook planned to expand its workforces from 1,500 to 9,000 employees in 

Menlo Park. 

August 24, 2011 – San Jose averaged temperature 78.7 degrees, the coolest summer since 1976. 

August, 2011 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 9.9%. 

August, 2011 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.85 a gallon. 

3 

5.a

September 14, 2011 – According to 2010 U.S. Census statistics, 16.3% of Californians were 

living under the poverty line, the highest rate since 1993. 

October 2011 to December 2011 – VTA offered discounted youth S’Cool Pass to increase 

ridership and awareness of VTA services to schools and other destinations throughout Santa 

Clara County. 

September 20, 2011 – According to New York Times, Americans feared of the possibility of 

second recession along with the prospects of corresponding layoffs. 

September 2011 – Spare the Air days: Sep. 20, Sep. 21, and Sep. 28. 

September, 2011 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 9.6%. 

September, 2011 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.91 a gallon. 

October 27, 2011 – VTA received $3.6 million Federal Grant and $910,000 California Prop 1B 

matching funds to acquire seven additional low-emission, diesel-electric hybrid buses. 

October 31, 2011 – Beacon Economics and State Employment Development Department stated 

that job growth in high tech area alone cannot carry a rebound unless the recovery of the housing 

market and other industries. 

November 24, 2011 – 21,000 runners participated in Turkey Trot in downtown San Jose. 

November 25, 2011 to January 2, 2012 – VTA offered free admission to the Global Winter 

Wonderland at Great America Parkway in Santa Clara, for riders taking light rail to the event. 

December 2, 2011 to January 2, 2012 – VTA offered free historical trolley ride (Candyland 

Express) during holidays. 

December 8, 2011 – According to a nonpartisan research group’s survey, middle class income 

family slipped to 49.7% last year from 60% three decades ago. 

December 20, 2011 – Facebook moved to its new office in Menlo Park. 

December 21, 2011 – Mercury News reported PS Business Park paid $520 million to purchase 

5.3 million square feet in nine Bay Area cities. The South Bay job market expanded 3.2%. 

December 21, 2011 – San Jose Airport has lost one-third of its scheduled flights and a quarter of 

passengers in the last three years. 

December 21, 2011 – Upgrades to twenty bus stops throughout Santa Clara County completed 

two months ahead of schedule. 

December 31, 2011 – VTA offered free and extended services on New Year’s Eve. 

4 

5.a

December, 2011 – Spare the Air days: Dec. 7 through Dec. 10, Dec. 14, Dec. 18, Dec. 19, Dec. 

21, Dec. 24, and Dec. 25. 

December, 2011 – Santa Clara County unemployment rate was 8.7%. 

December, 2011 – Unleaded fuel averaged $3.57 a gallon. 

5 

5.a

Key 

Performance 

Indicators 

5.a


KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 


FY 2009 

Annual 

FY 2010 

Annual 

FY 2011 

Annual 

FYTD 2012 

2nd quarter 

Met 

Goal? 


Goals 

SYSTEM (Bus & Light Rail) 

Total Boarding Riders (in millions) 45.26 41.73 41.41 21.27 YES >= 20.60 

Average Weekday Boarding Riders 146,125 134,930 134,058 137,301 YES >= 133,400 

Boardings per Revenue Hour 32.0 30.8 31.7 32.2 YES >= 31.0 

Percent of Scheduled Service Operated 99.72% 99.72% 99.75% 99.70% YES >= 99.55% 

Miles Between Major Mechanical Schedule Loss 1 

9,047 9,505 10,733 10,646 YES >= 9,000 

Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 102,562 100,113 108,980 108,755 No >= 112,300 

Passenger Concerns per 100,000 Boardings 

BUS OPERATIONS 

9.7 11.7 12.9 13.5 No = 15.60 

Average Weekday Boarding Riders 111,820 103,575 102,187 103,963 YES >= 101,500 

Boardings per Revenue Hour 25.0 26.2 26.8 27.0 YES >= 26.1 



8,289 8,670 9,810 9,814 YES >= 8,000 

Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 92,503 90,049 99,943 98,366 No >= 100,000 

On-time Performance 88.6% 89.1% 88.6% 86.4% No >= 95.0% 

Operator Personal Time-off 7.7% 9.2% 9.5% 8.9% YES = 72.5 



38,223 43,657 39,821 30,027 No >= 40,000 

Miles Between Chargeable Accidents 2 

1,108,479 1,091,425 365,023 555,491 No >= 1,095,923 

On-time Performance 90.1% 88.2% 87.7% 90.3% No >= 95.0% 

Operator Personal Time-off 7.3% 8.8% 10.2% 6.9% YES

Ridership 

Summary 

5.a


RIDERSHIP SUMMARY 

(Directly Operated, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services) 



2nd quarter 

FYTD 2011 

2nd quarter % Change 

Directly Operated Services 

Bus 15,994,144 15,509,634 3.1% 

Average Weekday Riders 103,963 100,258 3.7% 

Light Rail 5,273,638 5,067,186 4.1% 


Total Directly Operated Services 21,267,782 20,576,820 3.4% 

Average Weekday Riders 

Inter-Agency Partners 

137,301 132,293 3.8% 

Dumbarton Express 136,033 130,756 4.0% 


Highway 17 Express 167,111 137,013 22.0% 

Average Weekday Riders 1,043 853 22.3% 

Monterey-San Jose Express 16,771 15,699 6.8% 

Average Weekday Riders 89 85 4.7% 

Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 377,906 339,543 11.3% 


Caltrain 6,898,320 6,318,809 9.2% 

Average Weekday Riders 

Contracted Services 

43,026 39,894 7.9% 

Paratransit 385,240 410,820 -6.2% 

Average Weekday Riders 2,701 2,886 -6.4% 

ACE Shuttles 123,189 110,471 11.5% 


IBM Light Rail Shuttle 12,122 11,008 10.1% 


Total Contracted / Inter-Agency 3,722,466 3,457,497 7.7% 

Combined Total Ridership (in Santa Clara County) 1 24,990,248 24,034,317 4.0% 

1 These figures are based on estimated ridership in the VTA service area for Caltrain, ACE, Highway 17 Express, Dumbarton Express, and Monterey- 

San Jose Express. Paratransit, Light Rail Shuttles, ACE Shuttles, and Caltrain Santa Clara County Shuttles are operated wholly within the service area, 

therefore, 100% of the ridership is included. 

7 

5.a

Route 

Performance 

5.a

5.a 

22 

23 

25 

26 

55 

60 

61 

62 

64 

66 

68 

70 

71 

72 

73 

77 

522 

10 

27 

31 

35 

40 

46 

47 

51 

52 

53 

54 

57 

58 

63 

81 

82 

89 

11 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

32 

34 

37 

39 

42 

45 

48 

49 

65 

88 

200 

201 

IBM 

Shuttles 

ACE 

Shuttles 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION T 

AUTHORITY 

Weekday Boardings per reevenue 

hour 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Traansit 

Operations Performance Report 

7.0 

8.9 

8.8 

11.5 

11.8 

13.5 

13.5 

13.3 

14.9 

15.7 

15.7 

16.3 

17.4 

17.1 


18.2 

17.9 

18.0 

17.6 

18.4 

18.9 

19.0 

19.0 

20.1 .1 

20.7 0.7 

20.5 0.5 

21.6 

23.3 

23.0 

24.7 

24.9 

24.5 

24.6 

24.3 

24.0 

25.8 

26.2 

25.7 

27.3 

26.7 

26.4 

28.1 

27.2 

28.7 

29.9 

29.6 

29.7 

29.3 

30.8 

31.3 

31.3 

31.4 

30.8 

36.5 

38.6 

Core 

Standard: 28.9 boardings 

per revenue hour 

Local 


per revene hour 

Community Bus 

Standard: 16.3 boardings 


Note: IBM and ACE shuttles are not considered in the calculation of the standard which is VTA‐based only. 

8

5.a 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY 

Weekday Boardings per revvenue 

hour 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Trannsit 

Operations Performance Report 

9.6 

11.6 


18.0 

70.2 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth –Almaden line 

* Line 901 is the Alum Rock to Santa Teresa Line 

* Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line. ine. 

92.4 

Limited 

Standard 15.0 Boarding Per 

Revenue Hour 

Express 

Standard: is 60% Maximum 

Load Factor 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 

63.8 

9 

Light Rail 


per revenue train hour

5.a 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTTATION 

AUTHORITY 

Saturday Boardings per revenue hour 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Transit Operationns 

Performance Report 

22 

23 

25 

26 

55 

60 

61 

62 

64 

66 

68 

70 

71 

72 

73 

77 

522 

10 

12 

27 

31 

35 

40 

46 

47 

54 

57 

63 

81 

82 

14 

18 

19 

32 

39 

42 

45 

48 

49 

200 

900* 

901* 

902* 

7.3 

9.9 

9.4 

9.3 

11.6 

11.8 

11.2 

13.1 

12.9 

14.8 

15.2 

15.3 

17.7 

17.7 

17.1 

18.3 

17.9 

17.9 

18.8 

19.3 

19.2 

20.1 

20.2 

21.4 

21.8 

22.7 

23.0 

24.0 

23.3 

24.2 

24.5 

25.4 

29.7 9.7 

29.6 .6 

30.7 

Local 


per r7venue hour 

Community Bus 



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

65.7 

67.2 

66.5 

28.7 

Light Rail 

Standard: 66.5 

boardings 

per revenue train hour 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 



* Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line. 

27.7 

28.5 

10 

35.9 

36.2 

Core 


per revenue hour

5.a 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANNSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY 

Sunday Boardings per revenue hour h 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Transit Opperations 

Performance Report 

22 

23 

25 

26 

55 

60 

61 

62 

64 

66 

68 

70 

71 

72 

73 

77 

1… 

1… 

2… 

3… 

3… 

4… 

4… 

5… 

5… 

6… 

8… 

8… 

14 

18 

19 

39 

48 

49 

200 

900* 

6.2 

7.1 

9.3 

9.4 

9.0 

11.1 

13.0 

13.2 

14.0 

13.4 

15.6 



18.4 

18.8 

18.4 

18.4 

20.2 

20.2 

21.44 

21.1 

21.0 

23.4 

22.6 

23.7 

24.5 

24.5 

25.6 

25.9 

901* 

56.2 

Standard: 53.1 

boardings 

902* 

51.8 

per revenue train 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

hour 

80 

27.6 

26.7 

28.4 

30.8 

31.7 

51.4 

35.9 

Core 



Local 



Community Bus 



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 



* Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line 

11 

Light Rail

5.a 

SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRAANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY 

FY 2012 Second Quarter Transsit 

Operations Performance Repor 

Express Routes Average Peaak 

Load 

Weekday 

101 

102 

103 

104 

120 

121 

122 

140 

168 

180 

181 

182 

DB 

Hwy 17 

MST 55 

17.8% 

43.2% % 

48.9% 

46.8% 46.8% 

49.2% 

53.0% 

56.5% 

58.4% 

64.1% 

Express 

Standard: is 60% Peak 

Load 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Saturday / Sunday 

181 

181 

34.6% 

37.8% 

41.9% 

41.9% 

41.4% 

42.2% 

Saturday, 62.4% 

Sunday, 80.0% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Note: HWY 17, MST and DB are not considered in the calculation tion of the standard which is VTA‐ based only. 

12

Boardings per Revenue Hour by Time Period 


Core Routes 

WEEKDAY 

ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL 

22 44.0 30.9 29.4 36.5 

23 42.8 35.0 34.6 38.6 Weekday Service Periods 

25 33.2 26.4 29.1 29.9 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 

26 36.8 25.4 23.0 30.8 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

55 29.1 27.3 24.3 28.1 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

60 26.5 26.6 19.2 25.8 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

61 27.4 22.8 19.3 24.7 

62 27.7 23.6 17.1 24.9 

64 33.4 23.2 18.5 27.3 

66 33.2 30.0 26.2 31.3 

68 28.2 23.8 24.4 26.2 

70 31.4 25.9 26.9 28.7 

71 25.5 29.5 24.0 26.7 

72 26.6 23.0 19.3 24.5 

73 31.9 31.9 20.7 31.3 

77 26.8 21.9 22.2 24.6 Legend: 

522 37.2 24.5 31.9 31.4 Below standard 

Standard 31.9 26.6 24.1 28.9 No Service 

13 

5.a



Core Routes 

SATURDAY 

ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL 

22 44.5 34.0 34.3 35.9 

23 26.7 38.3 35.4 36.2 Saturday Service Periods 

25 26.9 27.3 32.1 27.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

26 16.3 25.0 32.3 24.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

55 33.1 22.5 16.7 22.7 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

60 28.6 22.8 28.8 24.0 

61 13.5 20.6 15.0 18.8 

62 21.4 21.9 16.7 21.4 

64 15.5 22.4 14.0 20.1 

66 23.2 30.5 35.9 29.7 

68 21.5 32.1 28.7 29.6 

70 23.2 28.7 34.6 28.5 

71 43.1 22.5 41.2 25.4 

72 21.4 23.8 19.0 23.0 

73 18.6 25.4 26.1 24.5 

77 42 42.0 0 29 29.2 2 27 27.1 1 30 30.7 7 

522 6.0 24.0 0.0 23.3 

Standard 25.0 26.5 27.4 26.2 

SUNDAY 


22 45.4 33.9 33.3 35.9 

23 26.9 32.7 30.0 31.6 Sunday Service Periods 

25 21.4 29.3 31.5 28.4 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

26 13.2 22.8 25.7 21.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

55 15.3 19.9 31.6 20.2 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

60 20.1 25.4 37.0 25.6 

61 11.1 16.6 15.8 15.6 

62 17.9 18.4 18.5 18.4 

64 17.3 19.8 15.0 18.8 

66 18.3 29.3 34.0 27.6 

68 17.4 27.6 29.5 25.8 

70 19.3 23.7 26.8 23.4 

71 19.6 27.7 26.4 26.7 

72 20.0 23.5 19.2 22.6 

73 14.7 24.2 63.0 23.7 Legend: 



14 

5.a



Local Routes 

WEEKDAY 


10 18.6 19.3 18.6 18.9 

27 19.3 16.4 19.0 18.2 Weekday Service Periods 

31 25.2 26.0 14.8 24.3 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 

35 21.4 17.0 14.7 19.0 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

40 31.3 21.3 16.8 25.7 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 


47 25.8 21.8 16.9 23.3 

51 27.4 32.6 0.0 29.7 

52 22.1 14.5 0.0 17.4 

53 31.6 26.8 0.0 29.3 

54 31.8 21.9 25.3 27.2 

57 25.7 24.5 16.0 24.0 

58 17.6 10.6 15.0 17.1 

63 19.3 16.2 14.5 17.9 

81 22.7 17.7 15.5 20.1 Legend: 

82 30.0 22.9 20.5 26.4 



15 

5.a



Local Routes 

SATURDAY 


10 17.3 23.4 14.4 20.2 

12 0.0 28.7 0.0 28.7 Saturday Service Periods 

27 18.7 18.3 9.5 17.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

31 19.2 13.9 0.0 14.8 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

35 23.4 22.4 14.9 21.8 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

40 11.3 15.5 0.0 15.2 

46 5.8 13.4 0.0 13.1 

47 22.1 17.6 32.1 18.3 

54 12.1 18.6 14.5 17.7 

57 19.5 17.4 21.9 17.9 

63 14.0 17.5 0.0 17.1 

81 0.0 9.9 0.0 9.9 

82 12.8 20.1 19.5 19.3 

Standard 16.0 18.2 18.1 17.8 

SUNDAY 


10 10.0 23.8 22.1 21.1 Sunday Service Periods 

12 0.0 30.8 0.0 30.8 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

27 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

31 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

35 18.0 18.5 16.4 18.4 

40 0.0 16.8 0.0 16.8 

47 29.6 24.4 23.9 24.5 

54 8.2 13.1 33.5 13.0 

57 11.2 21.8 0.0 20.2 

63 0.0 14.0 0.0 14.0 Legend: 

81 0.0 9.3 0.0 9.3 



16 

5.a



Community Bus 

WEEKDAY 


11 15.3 11.8 0.0 13.5 

13 15.3 11.4 0.0 13.5 Weekday Service Periods 

14 11.7 11.3 0.0 11.5 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 

16 24.7 6.7 0.0 15.7 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

17 9.7 8.2 0.0 8.9 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 


19 17.6 14.6 0.0 15.7 

32 23.9 17.0 17.7 21.6 

34 0.0 17.6 0.0 17.6 

37 16.8 15.6 0.0 16.3 

39 20.4 22.0 15.1 20.7 

42 23.1 18.8 0.0 20.5 

45 13.3 10.2 11.3 11.8 

48 16.9 18.5 9.5 16.8 

49 14.9 12.6 4.8 13.3 

65 17.3 17 3 12.3 12 3 0.0 00 14 14.9 9 

88 21.2 16.7 0.0 19.0 

200 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.8 

201 37.4 20.7 38.4 30.8 

Standard 18.7 15.0 15.1 16.3 

17 

5.a



Community Bus 

SATURDAY 

ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 

14 6.0 12.4 9.2 11.6 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

18 0.0 9.4 0.0 9.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

19 13.9 16.1 5.7 15.3 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

32 0.0 17.9 0.0 17.9 

39 16.6 19.7 16.8 19.2 

42 0.0 12.9 0.0 12.9 

45 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.3 

48 9.5 12.1 10.3 11.8 

49 14.8 9.0 3.8 9.3 

200 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.2 

Standard 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

SUNDAY 

ROUTE BASE Sunday Service Periods 

14 94 9.4 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

18 7.1 

19 13.2 

39 21.0 

48 13.4 

49 9.0 Legend: 

200 6.2 Below standard 

Standard 15.0 No Service 

18 

5.a



Light Rail 

WEEKDAY 

ROUTE PEAK MIDDAY OFF PEAK TOTAL Weekday Service Periods 

900* 76.8 59.1 46.3 63.8 Peak 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM & 

901* 112.9 80.2 64.8 92.4 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM 

902* 79.5 58.1 55.0 70.2 Midday 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM 

Standard 89.7 65.8 55.4 75.5 Off Peak 7:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

SATURDAY 

ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Saturday Service Periods 

900* 26.9 74.1 51.5 65.7 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

901* 37.1 74.2 75.4 67.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

902* 33.8 75.3 71.5 66.5 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

Standard 32.6 74.5 66.1 66.5 

SUNDAY 

ROUTE AM BASE NIGHT TOTAL Sunday Service Periods 

900* 21.7 59.1 36.2 51.4 AM 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM 

901* 27.8 63.1 63.3 56.2 Base 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

902* 25.3 61.3 49.5 51.8 Night 6:00 PM to 5:00 AM 

Standard 24.9 61.2 49.7 53.1 

Legend: 

Below standard 

No Service 

* Line 900 is the Ohlone/Chynoweth – Almaden line 


* Line 902 is the Mountain View to Winchester Line. 

19 

5.a

Paratransit 

Operating 

Statistics 

5.a


PARATRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS 


2nd Quarter 

FY 2012 

2nd Quarter 

FY 2011 

Percent 

Change FYTD 2012 FYTD 2011 Percent Change 

RIDERSHIP 

Clients 134,133 147,318 -9.0% 276,226 302,352 -8.6% 

Attendants 38,134 47,747 -20.1% 78,825 99,480 -20.8% 

Companions 15,565 6,126 154.1% 30,189 8,988 235.9% 

Total Ridership 187,832 201,191 -6.6% 385,240 410,820 -6.2% 

Average Weekday Trips 2,647 2,822 -6.2% 2,701 2,886 -6.4% 

Average Weekday Client Trips 

PREMIUM SERVICES 

1,901 2,098 -9.4% 1,949 2,143 -9.1% 

Same Day Trips 387 505 -23.4% 744 928 -19.8% 

Second Vehicles 64 259 -75.3% 138 558 -75.3% 

Open Returns 149 146 2.1% 299 331 -9.7% 

Service Area Surcharge Trips 1,403 1,508 -7.0% 2,918 2,940 -0.7% 

Subscription Trips 21,462 27,192 -21.1% 45,708 58,740 -22.2% 

Total 23,465 29,610 -20.8% 49,807 63,497 -21.6% 

LEVEL OF SERVICE 

Revenue Miles 1,461,456 1,453,433 0.6% 2,977,594 2,961,195 0.6% 

Revenue Hours 73,311 78,185 -6.2% 149,339 160,609 -7.0% 

Passenger Miles (NTD) 

ELIGIBILITY 

2,068,344 1,984,878 4.2% 4,243,585 3,968,807 6.9% 

Total Data Cards Received 1,643 2,155 -23.8% 3,932 4,262 -7.7% 

New Applicants Certified 522 613 -14.8% 1,136 1,220 -6.9% 

New Applicants Denied 170 162 4.9% 314 310 1.3% 

Clients Recertified 572 706 -19.0% 1,359 1,350 0.7% 

Clients Denied Recertification 143 165 -13.3% 317 363 -12.7% 

Total Eligibility Assessments 

EXPENSES AND REVENUES 

1,407 1,646 -14.5% 3,126 3,243 -3.6% 

EXPENSES 

Eligibility Certification Costs $128,262 $124,436 3.1% $265,111 $258,274 2.6% 

Broker Costs $872,409 $932,876 -6.5% $1,783,310 $1,888,960 -5.6% 

Vendor Costs $4,125,629 $4,367,521 -5.5% $8,451,462 $9,022,654 -6.3% 

Total Operating Costs 

REVENUES 

$5,126,300 $5,424,833 -5.5% $10,499,883 $11,169,888 -6.0% 

Client Fare $518,492 $556,815 -6.9% $1,063,177 $1,148,291 -7.4% 

Other Fare $114,803 $78,667 45.9% $241,263 $203,555 18.5% 

Non-VTA Broker Revenue $19,216 $13,234 45.2% $41,401 $26,497 56.2% 

Total Revenue $652,511 $648,716 0.6% $1,345,841 $1,378,343 -2.4% 

Net Expenses $4,473,789 $4,776,117 -6.3% $9,154,042 $9,791,545 -6.5% 

Fare Recovery Rate 12.35% 11.71% 5.5% 12.42% 12.10% 2.7% 

Capital Expenses $27,627 $46,651 -40.8% $54,595 $94,058 -42.0% 

Total Expenses $4,501,416 $4,822,768 -6.7% $9,208,637 $9,885,603 -6.8% 

COST PER PASSENGER TRIP (excludes capital expenses) 

Total Reported Costs $ 27.29 $ 26.96 1.2% $27.26 $27.19 0.2% 

Fare Revenue $ 3.37 $ 3.16 6.7% $3.39 $3.29 2.9% 

Non-fare revenue $ 0.10 $ 0.07 42.9% $0.11 $0.06 83.3% 

Net Cost $ 23.82 $ 23.73 0.4% $23.76 $23.84 -0.3% 

PERFORMANCE 

Passengers / Revenue Hour 2.60 2.60 0.0% 2.58 2.56 0.8% 

Passenger Miles / Passenger Trip 11.00 9.90 11.1% 11.00 9.70 13.4% 

Late Rate* 3.0% 3.1% -3.2% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 

*Paratransit Trip Late Rate: Percentage of paratransit client trips that performed their pick-ups 10 or more minutes after the end of the client’s scheduled 30-minute pick-up window. 

20 

5.a

5.a 

Glossary

GLOSSARY 

AVERAGE FARE PER BOARDING – This measure is calculated by dividing the total fare 

revenue (cash, passes, tokens, and Eco Pass) by total boarding riders. It measures the rider 

contribution towards the farebox recovery ratio. 

AVERAGE WEEKDAY BOARDINGS – The average number of persons who board the transit 

system on a day that normal weekday revenue service is provided. 

BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR – This is a productivity measure comparing the number of 

boardings to the number of revenue hours operated. It measures service utilization per unit of service 

operated. The Revenue hours is the time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry 

passengers. This will include layover but exclude deadheads. 

Layover is the break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its 

reverse route, or, if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip. Deadhead is time during 

movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from the operating division to the 

start of the route. 

BRT (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) ROUTES – The BRT route is a multi-component transit 

improvement that includes preferential treatment at traffic signals to improve bus operating speed and 

on-time performance. It operates in mixed traffic and relies on priority for buses at traffic signals to 

provide much of its time advantage over conventional buses. Currently, VTA operates line 522, the 

only BRT route in the system. 

COMMUNITY BUS ROUTES – Community Bus service is characterized by weekday frequencies 

of 30 minutes or more in both the peak and midday periods. Service span is 14 hours or less, usually 

12 hours for weekdays. Community Bus services operate 7 days per week or less. These routes are 

defined as neighborhood-based circulator and feeder routes that travel within a limited area .They 

may be distinguished from Core and Local service by a unique and smaller vehicle. 

CORE ROUTES – Core network routes are defined as bus routes or shared corridors that feature 

weekday frequencies of 15 minutes or less during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans 

of 18 hours or more. Core routes operate 7 days per week. They typically travel on long distance 

corridors, which connect major trip generators such as universities, regional shopping malls and highdensity 

housing and employment sites. Multiple core routes will sometimes operate on the same 

corridor where demand warrants, providing additional service frequency and transfer opportunities. 

Core network corridors are typically large arterial streets and intersect with freeways and 

expressways. 

DEADHEAD: Time during movement of a transit vehicle without passengers aboard, typically from 

the operating division to the start of the route. 

EXPRESS & LIMITED SERVICE ROUTES – Express routes generally operate during peak 

periods and are primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered 

on regional express lines. Express routes emphasize direct service, use freeways and expressways to 

reduce travel time, and make few stops. Limited Service routes are characterized by limited stops. 

FEEDER ROUTES – Feeder routes are short-length lines, usually less than 10 miles in length, that 

provide feeder or distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers or rail 

5.a

stations. This classification of service includes neighborhood lines, which link residential areas to 

rail stations, activity centers, and/or transit centers; and shuttle lines, which serve industrial areas 

from nearby rail stations or transit centers. 

LAYOVER: Break the driver or the vehicle is given at the end of a trip before it starts operating its 

reverse route, or if the route is circular, before beginning its next trip 

LIMITED STOP ROUTES – Limited-stop service generally operates during peak periods and is 

primarily commuter oriented. Midday, evening, and weekend service may be offered on limited-stop 

lines. Limited-stop routes use major arterials, freeways, and/or expressways; and make fewer stops 

than grid routes, but more stops than express routes. 

LOCAL ROUTES – Local network routes are defined as bus routes or corridors that feature 

weekday frequencies of 30 minutes or more during the peak and midday periods and/or service spans 

less than 18 hours. Local Network routes operate 7 days per week or less. They typically travel on 

medium distance corridors, serving minor trip generators such as schools, hospitals and mediumdensity 

housing and employment. They also provide feeder service to the core network or to rail 

stations and transit centers. 

MILES BETWEEN CHARGEABLE ACCIDENTS – Safety measure that captures the number of 

total scheduled miles traveled between each occurrence of a preventable accident. A preventable 

accident is defined as accidents in which the transit driver is normally deemed responsible or partly 

responsible for the occurrence of the accident. 

MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL SERVICE LOSS – Service quality measure capturing the 

number of total scheduled miles traveled between each mechanical breakdown that result in a loss of 

service to the public. 

PARATRANSIT TRIP LATE RATE: Percentage of paratransit client trips that performed their 

pick-ups 10 or more minutes after the end of the client’s scheduled 30-minute pick-up window. 

SPECIAL SERVICE ROUTES – Special services routes only operate on certain days of the week 

or on a seasonal basis to address a specific service need. 

NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) – The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) 

primary national database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA’s Urbanized Area 

Formula Program (Section 5307) grants are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Each year, 

NTD performance data are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in 

urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service 

and safety data. The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the 

Secretary of Transportation to administer department programs. The data consist of selected financial 

and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. The legislative requirement for 

the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). 

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE – A reliability measure capturing the percentage of transit vehicles 

departing or arriving at a location on time. On-time performance is measured only for specific 

locations called timepoints for which a schedule is published. A bus transit vehicle is considered “on 

time” if it departs a location within 3 minutes before and 5 minutes after its published scheduled time. 

A light rail transit vehicle is considered “on time” if it departs a location within 1 minute before and 5 

minutes after its published scheduled time. At the first timepoint location of a trip, the vehicle is 

5.a

measured based on arrival time, not departure time. At the last timepoint location of a trip, early 

arrival regardless of the number of minutes is considered on-time. 

PASSENGER CONCERNS PER 100,000 BOARDINGS – A customer service measure that 

captures the number of passenger complaints/concerns per 100,000 boardings. This measures reports 

the amount of customer complaints received on the service that is attributed to an operating division. 

PEAK LOAD (Express) - The Express bus standard is 60% of the seated vehicle loading 

capacity. This singular standard is needed due to the special characteristics of Express Bus 

lines where seat turnover is low. 

PERCENT SCHEDULED SERVICE OPERATED – This service reliability measure indicates the 

percent of service hours completed based on published schedule. A service is considered not 

completed when scheduled service hours are lost due to equipment failure, missed or late pull-outs 

caused by operator absenteeism, pullouts, accidents/incidents, or natural causes. 

PERSONAL TIME OFF (PTO) – This is defined as time off for non-scheduled absences such as: 

sick, industrial injury, FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act.), excused/unexcused leave, union 

business, and suspensions. 

REVENUE HOURS: Time when a vehicle is available to the general public to carry passengers. 

This will include layover but exclude deadhead. 

STANDARD (Boardings per revenue Hour): This is the average boardings per Revenue Hour and 

applies to Community Bus, Local, BRT, and Light Rail. The minimum standard is 15 boardings per 

revenue hour. 

TOTAL BOARDINGS – The total number of boarding riders using VTA directly operated bus 

service and light rail service. Riders are counted each time they board a bus or light rail vehicle. 

5.a





FROM: Robinson, Gonot, Ristow 



Board Meeting: March 1, 2012 

SUBJECT: 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report - 

December 2011 

DISCUSSION: 


Please find attached the Semi-Annual Report for the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement 

Program through December 2011. 

Prepared By: Adolf Daaboul, Sr. Transportation Engineer 

Memo No. 3451 


6

2000 Measure A Program 

Semi-Annual Report 

December 2011 

6.a


Semi-Annual Report – December 2011 Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Title Page 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS 

A. Executive Summary ........................................................................ 1-2 

B. Project Appropriations .................................................................... 1-4 

C. Incurred Costs ................................................................................. 1-8 

D. Measure A Fund Exchange ............................................................. 1-9 

E. Funding ........................................................................................... 1-10 

2 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS 

A. Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 

1. BART Silicon Valley .............................................................. 2-3 

2. Freight Rail Relocation and Other Corridor 

Establishment and Maintenance .............................................. 2-5 

B. Light Rail Program 

1. Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge ........................... 2-7 

2. Light Rail System Improvements ............................................ 2-9 

3. Extension to Vasona Junction ................................................. 2-11 

C. Commuter Rail Program 

1. Caltrain Service Upgrades ....................................................... 2-13 

2. Caltrain South County ............................................................. 2-15 

3. Caltrain Electrification / High Speed Rail ............................... 2-17 

4. Dumbarton Rail Corridor ........................................................ 2-19 

5. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center ....................................... 2-21 

6. ACE Upgrades ......................................................................... 2-23 

i 

6.a


Semi-Annual Report – December 2011 Table of Contents 

Section Title Page 

2 D. Bus Program 

1. BRT - Santa Clara / Alum Rock .............................................. 2-25 

2. BRT - El Camino Real ............................................................ 2-27 

3. Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................... 2-29 

4. ZEB Demonstration and Facility Improvements ..................... 2-31 

5. Money Counting Facility Replacement .................................. 2-33 

E. San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover .......................................... 2-35 

F. Closed Projects .............................................................................. 2-37 

A APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATE CLASSES ................................ A-1 

B APPENDIX B – 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE ......... B-1 

C APPENDIX C – 2000 MEASURE A FUND SWAPS ........................ C-1 

Section List of Figures Page 

1 1.1 Measure A Project Appropriations................................................ 1-7 

1 1.2 Measure A Project Incurred Costs ................................................ 1-8 

C 1.3 Funds Outgoing From Measure A ................................................ C-1 

C 1.4 Funds Incoming To Measure A..................................................... C-1 

ii 

6.a


Semi-Annual Report – December 2011 Executive Summary and Project Costs 

SECTION 1.0 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND 

PROJECT COSTS 

6.a



SECTION 1.0 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS 

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Semi-Annual Report is a periodic update of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement 

Program prepared by VTA staff and provided to the 2000 Measure A Watchdog Committee and 

the VTA Board of Directors. The report is based on the Program’s budgeted, forecast, and 

incurred costs as of December 31, 2011. Additionally, key activities that occurred in the six 

months leading up to that date are described. 

By way of a brief progress report, during the six-month period covered by this report: 

� On January 9, 2012, the VTA was notified by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

that its $900 million grant request for the BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension 

(SVBX) Project has received all administrative approvals. The execution of a Full 

Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is 

the final step before active construction can commence on the project. In mid December 

2011, the FTA presented an FFGA packet to the Federal Office of Management and 

Budget and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Both of these federal offices 

approved the grant packet. Following this approval, the grant packet – complete with 

project scope, schedule and cost summary – was submitted to Congress on January 9, 

2012 with a recommendation for grant award and to begin the mandatory 60-day 

congressional notification period. During this period, House and Senate committees may 

seek additional project information prior to execution of the grant award. 

� At its December 2011 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors awarded the C700 Design- 

Build Contract for the BART SVBX Project to Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog, a Joint 

Venture, with a contract price of $772 million. The C700 Design-Build contract is the 

largest single contract for the BART SVBX Project and provides the final design and 

construction of the Line, Track, Stations, and Systems elements for the 10-mile Berryessa 

Extension, the first phase of the 16-mile BART Extension into Santa Clara County. 

� In December 2011, the Santa Clara/Alum Rock BRT Project completed the 

Preliminary Engineering phase and the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General 

Manager to amend the contract with CH2M Hill to begin Final Design. 

� At its October 2011 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General 

Manager to execute an agreement between VTA and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 

District for the purchase of property and the design and construction work for the 

Hayward Maintenance Complex Project. The cost would be $125.3 million for design 

and construction plus property acquisition and relocation costs estimated between $55 

million and $60 million for an approximate total cost of $180.3 million to $185.3 million. 

The estimated $49 million for the Hayward Yard Primary Shop Conversion is part of the 

1-2 

6.a



BART SVBX New Starts project definition that and will be eligible for federal funding 

under the BART SVBX Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). 

� At its September 2011 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General 

Manager to execute a $22.14 million contract with Gordon N. Ball for the construction of 

the Kato Road Grade Separation Project. The KGS project includes construction of 

the BART bridge structure, which is essential to allow the BART SVBX contractor 

access along the corridor over the depressed Kato Road. 

� In August 2011, VTA received a $40 million allocation for the BART SVBX Project 

from the California Transportation Commission (CTC). This installment was the third of 

six, totaling approximately $240 million for the BART SVBX Project under the CTC’s 

TCRP Allocation Plan approved in September 2008. In addition, the City of Fremont 

received a $10 million allocation of Proposition 1B Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety 

Account (HRCSA) grant funding for the Kato Road Grade Separation Project. 

� In July 2011, the Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) completed its 

review of Fiscal Year 2010 expenditures, evaluated the results of an independent audit of 

Measure A financial records and conducted a public hearing in May 2011 to gather input 

from the community. After thorough review and careful consideration of all information 

and input received, the CWC concluded that, for the period of FY 2010, the 2000 

Measure A tax dollars were spent in accordance with the intent of the measure. 

In the same manner VTA was committed to and completed all projects in the 1996 Measure B 

Program, VTA is committed to completing all the projects in the 2000 Measure A Program. 

During FY2012 and FY2013, VTA will advance projects to a ready state and advocate for 

outside fund sources and matched funds to advance projects including potential public-private 

partnerships. 

This report shows a snapshot of the 2000 Measure A Program at the time of writing. However, it 

is important to understand that the timing and prioritization of projects in the program remains 

fluid. 

1-3 

6.a



B. PROJECT APPROPRIATIONS 

Figure 1.1, on page 1-7, shows the prior and current project appropriations for each project in the 

2000 Measure A Program. Changes in appropriations during the report period are discussed 

below. 

Programwide costs are incurred when activities that provide indirect benefit to the projects are 

performed. There are three programwide cost components to the 2000 Measure A Program: 

� Bond costs (capitalized interest and bond charges) 

� 2000 Measure A programwide 

� SVRT programwide 

VTA’s external auditor recommended the allocation of programwide costs to individual projects. 

The allocation is necessary to associate the costs to the related projects that were benefited by the 

incurrence of the programwide costs. It also promotes the appropriate treatment of the costs in a 

timely manner. VTA allocates programwide costs on a quarterly basis. 

VTA started allocating Bond costs and 2000 Measure A programwide costs in Fiscal Year 2010. 

The allocation of the SVRT programwide costs has been deferred due to the ongoing 

reevaluation of the SVRT project structure. 

Bond Costs 

Bond costs represent interest and other bond charges (net of interest earned on bond proceeds) 

related to 2000 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. Other bond charges include periodic fees 

related to variable rate bonds, including liquidity, remarketing, trustee and rating fees. Bonds 

were initially issued beginning in 2003, prior to the start of the 2000 Measure A Sales Tax, in 

order to advance the SVRT, Commuter Rail, and Light Rail programs prior to sales tax revenue 

collections. Currently there are approximately $999.4 million in 2000 Measure A Sales Tax 

Revenue Bonds outstanding. 

Capitalized interest/bond charges need to be associated with the assets that were funded by the 

bond proceeds. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 62, 

capitalized interest related to restricted assets should be net of the interest income earned by the 

reinvested bond proceeds. Costs are allocated directly to specific projects based on the prorata 

share of bond proceeds used to fund expenditures. These costs will continue to be allocated 

directly to project expenditures until the bonds are repaid in full or until such projects are 

completed, whichever comes first. 

1-4 

6.a



2000 Measure A Programwide Allocation Costs 

2000 Measure A programwide activities include preparation of progress and cost reports, 

financial forecasting, publication of annual financial audits and public hearings conducted by the 

2000 Measure A Citizen’s Watchdog Committee, and other general tasks that are not attributable 

to individual projects. 

In allocating the 2000 Measure A programwide cost, the basis used is the incremental cost of the 

projects during the quarter. For the capitalized interest/bond charges, the basis used was the 

amount of bond proceeds that were used to fund the projects. 

18.46% of the Measure A Sales Tax revenue is used in support of VTA operations. Through 

December 31, 2011, a cumulative total of $161.4 million has been expended for this purpose. 

Changes in Appropriations 

1. Programwide Costs (including VTA Operating Assistance) 

The appropriation decreased by $7.7 million to a new value of $412.2 million due to 

the following: 

a. $6.8 million of Capitalized Interest and Bond Costs were allocated to various 

ongoing projects, as described below. 

b. $0.9 million of Measure A Programwide costs were allocated to various projects, 

as described below. 

2. Silicon Valley Rapid Transit and Freight Rail Relocation 

The project appropriation increased by $6.7 million to a new total of $2.58 billion due 

to the following: 

a. $5.9 million of Bond Interest was allocated to the SVRT project. 

b. $0.8 million of Measure A Programwide costs were allocated to the SVRT 

project. 

3. Light Rail Program 

The appropriation increased by $0.6 million to a new value of $372.8 million as 

follows: 

a. $0.6 million of Bond Interest was allocated to the Light Rail Program, primarily 

the CELR to Eastridge project. 

b. $0.1 million of Measure A Programwide costs were allocated to various Light 

Rail projects. 

c. Appropriation for Light Rail System Improvements decreased by $0.1 million to 

fund the Bike Sharing Pilot Project. 

1-5 

6.a



Changes in Appropriations, Continued 

4. Commuter Rail Program 

The appropriation increased by $0.4 million to a new value of $129.5 million as 

follows: 

a. $0.2 million of Bond Interest was allocated to the Commuter Rail Program, 

primarily the Caltrain Service Upgrades. 

b. The appropriation for the Bike Sharing Pilot Project was increased by $0.2 

million. 

5. Bus Program 

The project appropriation remained unchanged at $230.0 million during the period. 

6. San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover 

The project appropriation remained unchanged at $4.0 million during the period. 

1-6 

6.a



(B e g in Column 1 heading) 

Project/Category 

Figure 1.1 

Measure A Project Appropriations 

Ju n-09 

a 

Previous 

Appropriation 

Through FY13 

Jun-11 

(b egin column 4 heading) 

b 

Current 

Appropriation 

Through FY13 

Dec-11 

(b egin c olumn 5 he ading ) 

c=(b - a) 

Changes 

This Period 

$'s in millions 

(b e gin c olumn 7 heading) 

d 

Text 

Reference 

2000 Measure A Programwide 

Capitalized Interest and Bond Costs $68.6 $61.8 ($6.8) 1.a 

Programwide Expenses $6.3 $5.4 ($0.9) 1.b 

VTA Operating Assistance $237.0 $237.0 $0.0 1.c 

Fund Exchange Payments $108.0 $108.0 $0.0 1.d 

Total $419.9 $412.2 ($7.7) 

SVRT (incl. FRR and Warm Springs Ext.) $2,573.8 $2,580.5 $6.7 2.a,b 

Light Rail Program 

CELR to Eastridge $149.7 $150.4 $0.7 

Light Rail System Improvements $9.1 $9.0 ($0.1) 

Extension to Vasona Junction $12.8 $12.8 $0.0 

Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles $200.6 $200.6 $0.0 

Total $372.2 $372.8 $0.6 3.a,b,c 

Commuter Rail Program 

Caltrain Service Upgrades 1 

$63.4 $63.8 $0.4 

Caltrain South County $61.9 $61.9 $0.0 

Caltrain Electrification / High Speed Rail $1.3 $1.3 $0.0 

Dumbarton Rail Corridor $2.1 $2.1 $0.0 

Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center $0.4 $0.4 $0.0 

ACE Upgrades 1 

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Total $129.1 $129.5 $0.4 4.a,b 

Bus Program 

BRT - Santa Clara/Alum Rock $114.1 $114.1 $0.0 

BRT - El Camino Real $19.3 $19.3 $0.0 

Other BRT (incl Bus Procurement) $70.3 $70.3 $0.0 

Money Counting Facility Replacement $4.2 $4.2 $0.0 

Hwy 17 Bus Service Improvements $2.5 $2.5 $0.0 

ZEB Demonstration and Improvements $19.6 $19.6 $0.0 

Total $230.0 $230.0 $0.0 5 

San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover $4.0 $4.0 $0.0 6 

GRAND TOTAL $3,729.0 $3,729.0 ($0.0) 

1 $10.0 million in appropriation for Caltrain Santa Clara Station improvements that benefit the ACE Upgrades project is included in the Caltrain 

Service Upgrades project. 

1-7 

6.a



C. INCURRED COSTS 

Figure 1.2 below shows incurred costs for Measure A Projects at the beginning and end of the 

period as well as the percent of the project appropriation (through FY13) incurred as of 

December 31, 2011. 

(B e g in Column 1 heading) 

Project/Category 

Figure 1.2 

Measure A Project Incurred Costs 

$'s in millions 



(b egin c olumn 4 heading) 

(b e g in colu mn 5 h e a ding ) 

d 

Percent of 

a 

b 

c=(b-a) Appropriation 

Incurred Costs Incurred Costs Incurred Costs Incurred 

Through Jun-11 Through Dec-11* This Period Dec-11 

2000 Measure A Programwide 

Capitalized Interest and Bond Costs $3.6 $9.5 $5.9 15.4% 

Programwide Expenses $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0% 

VTA Operating Assistance $145.5 $161.4 $15.9 68.1% 

Fund Exchange Payments $59.5 $61.8 $2.3 57.2% 

Total $208.6 $232.7 $24.1 56.5% 

SVRT (incl. FRR and Warm Springs Ext.) $842.3 $943.8 $101.5 36.6% 


CELR to Eastridge $63.4 $75.6 $12.2 50.3% 

Light Rail System Improvements $2.4 $2.4 $0.0 26.7% 

Extension to Vasona Junction $0.5 $0.6 $0.1 4.7% 

Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles $200.6 $200.6 $0.0 100.0% 

Total $266.9 $279.2 $12.3 74.9% 


Caltrain Service Upgrades $38.0 $41.6 $3.6 65.2% 

Caltrain South County $16.6 $17.4 $0.8 28.1% 

Caltrain Electrification / High Speed Rail $0.4 $0.4 $0.0 30.8% 

Dumbarton Rail Corridor $1.9 $2.0 $0.1 95.2% 

Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center $0.2 $0.2 $0.0 50.0% 

ACE Upgrades $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 X 

Total $57.1 $61.6 $4.5 47.6% 

Bus Program 

BRT - Santa Clara/Alum Rock $6.6 $8.5 $1.9 7.4% 

BRT - El Camino Real $2.6 $3.5 $0.9 18.1% 

Other BRT (incl Bus Procurement) $2.2 $2.2 $0.1 3.1% 

Money Counting Facility Replacement $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0.0% 

Hwy 17 Bus Service Improvements $2.5 $2.5 $0.0 100.0% 

ZEB Demonstration and Improvements $19.4 $19.4 $0.0 99.0% 

Total $33.3 $36.1 $2.9 15.7% 

San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover $1.2 $1.2 $0.0 30.0% 

GRAND TOTAL $1,409.5 $1,554.6 $145.3 41.7% 

*December 31, 2011 incurred cost figures are unaudited and are subject to change. 

1-8 

6.a



D. MEASURE A FUND EXCHANGE 

State law guarantees Santa Clara County a formula share of the State Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) over a six-year period. State law and regional policy make the 

VTA Board of Directors responsible for determining which eligible transportation projects will 

receive those funds. 

The VTA Board of Directors, at its June 7, 2007, and December 13, 2007 meetings approved the 

exchange of STIP grant funds for Measure A funds and programmed STIP funds to Measure A 

projects in exchange for an equivalent amount of 2000 Measure A Sales Tax funds. The 

exchange of funds creates the Local Program Reserve (LPR) which allows the Board of 

Directors to use those funds to program to other transportation projects. The Board approved the 

fund exchange because it: 

� Accelerates Project Delivery and Reduces Administrative Costs - STIP funds come with 

substantial state requirements that impact schedule and cost of project delivery. The 

exchange of funds allows the Board to free the projects from costly administrative 

burdens. 

� Enables the VTA Board to Manage Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) Expenditures - By 

exchanging STIP funds, the VTA Board eliminates the need for Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Transportation Commission 

(CTC) to approve all STIP programming decisions after they are approved by the VTA 

Board. Further, it eliminates the CTC’s approval of all subsequent STIP fund allocations 

for all STIP funded projects. 

A portion of the exchange funds will be used to pay interest to the Measure A Program for fund 

advances. The initial amount is paid back when the CTC allocates STIP funds to the Measure A 

projects and VTA draws the cash from the State. The interest will be calculated, and paid from 

the LPR account when (1) all STIP funds are drawn by the project and (2) all associated LPR 

funds are actually paid to projects. Interest will be calculated at that time as well, based on 

VTA's rates of return on its pooled investment accounts at the time the advances occurred. 

Of note, the first three projects in the "Local Program Reserve Projects" table (Appendix C) 

qualified for CMIA funds only because we were able to use exchange funds to advance these 

projects. CMIA funds allocated to each project were: 

� $71.6 million for I-880 HOV Widening: SR-237 to US-101 

� $30.0 million for US 101 Improvements (280/680 to Tully) 

� $84.9 million for US 101 Improvements (SR-85 to Embarcadero) 

These and other VTP Highway projects that utilize Measure A exchange funds are the subject of 

the VTP Highways Semi-Annual Report that goes as an information item to the VTA Board in 

September and January of each year. 

1-9 

6.a



E. FUNDING 

Funding is a key issue for many of the 2000 Measure A projects. As a consequence, in this 

report we refer to several terms associated with a project’s funding level. These terms, arranged 

in order of increasing certainty of funding availability, are as follows: 

1. Estimated Cost – An estimate of the total cost of a project given the currently known 

scope and configuration of the project. In the case of projects where there is little or no 

scope definition, “TBD” (To be Determined) is shown. As the project is better defined, 

estimated cost figures will be included for these projects. In the individual project 

information sheets, we have included the “Estimate Class” in order to give an idea of the 

level of uncertainty associated with the estimated cost. A more detailed discussion of this 

topic is included in the appendix. 

2. Appropriation Through FY13 - The most recent Adopted Budget includes appropriations, 

based on an estimate of expenditures during FY12 and FY13, for various 2000 Measure 

A projects. Since these projects can run beyond FY13, the appropriation amount is only 

a time-constrained slice of total estimated expenditures. 

3. Secured Funding – Funding that has been committed by funding agencies and is now 

available to VTA for project expenditures. In many cases, secured funding is at a lower 

level than the appropriation in the Adopted Budget. For these projects, it is anticipated 

that additional funding may be secured during the FY12/FY13 period. It is important to 

note that, regardless of the level of appropriation, actual expenditures will not exceed 

secured funding at any time. 

1-10 

6.a


Semi-Annual Report – December 2011 Project Summary Reports 

SECTION 2 

PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS 

2-1 

6.a


Semi-Annual Report – December 2011 Project Summary Reports 

MEASURE A PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS 

A. SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT 

1. BART Silicon Valley 

2. Freight Rail Relocation And Other Corridor Establishment And 

Maintenance Activities 

B. LIGHT RAIL PROGRAM 

1. Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge 

2. Light Rail System Improvements 

3. Extension to Vasona Junction 

C. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM 

1. Caltrain Service Upgrades 

2. Caltrain South County 

3. Caltrain Electrification / High Speed Rail 

4. Dumbarton Rail Corridor 

5. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center 

6. ACE Upgrades 

D. BUS PROGRAM 

1. BRT - Santa Clara / Alum Rock 

2. BRT - El Camino Real 

3. Bus Rapid Transit 

4. ZEB Demonstration and Facility Improvements 

5. Money Counting Facility Replacement 

E. SAN JOSE MINETA AIRPORT PEOPLE MOVER 

F. CLOSED PROJECTS 

1. Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements 

2. Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles 

2-2 

6.a

Estimated Cost: $3.157 billion* 

Estimate Class 3 (see appendix) 

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 

BART Silicon Valley 

Appropriation Through FY13: $2.19 billion 

Secured Funding: $1.28 billion 

Year of Completion: 2018 (Berryessa Extension) 

Project Manager: 

Carolyn Gonot 

Designers (PE): 

HNTB, HMM/Bechtel, Wong/PB, AECOM, 

Booz Allen Hamilton, Kimley-Horn, STV 

Contractor (DB): 

Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog 

Project Description: 

The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Project 

extends BART from Warm Springs, through 

Milpitas and downtown San Jose to Santa Clara, 

a distance of 16.1 miles. 

The first phase, the Berryessa Extension Project, 

is under implementation for 10 miles from Warm 

Springs to San Plumas Avenue in San Jose 

including two stations, and is expected to be 

completed in 2018. 

Project Status: 

December 2011 

Project Development: On January 9, 2012, VTA was notified by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that its $900 

million grant request had received all administrative approvals. The grant packet was then submitted to Congress with a 

recommendation for grant award, and to begin the mandatory 60-day congressional notification period. 

Right-of-Way: All major municipal and utility master agreements required for SVBX have been executed. Acquisition of 

right-of-Way continued to progress with development of the Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA’s), preappraisal 

work, appraisals, offers and negotiations. 

Design/Construction: At its December 2011 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors awarded a Design-Build contract for 

Line, Track, Systems and Stations (Contract C700) to Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog, a Joint Venture, with a contract price of 

$772 million. At that same meeting, the VTA Board authorized the SVBX construction management contract as well as 

amendments to existing project management, planning, and engineering services contracts. 

At its October 2011 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to execute an agreement with the 

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for the purchase of property and the design and construction work for the Hayward 

Maintenance Complex project. 

Project Schedule: (For Berryessa Extension only) 

Activity Start End 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Environmental Early 2004 Early 2011 

Design Early 2004 Late 2013 

Right-of-Way Mid 2007 Late 2013 

Construction Mid 2012 Late 2017 

Testing and Commissioning Mid 2017 Mid 2018 

Revenue Service Mid 2018 N/A 

*P-0501 through P-0507, P-0509, P-0728, P-0732, P-3101, P-3124, P-3125 for SVRT Program activities 

through 2018, including the Berryessa Extension Project 

2-3 

6.a

Cost Information: 

(Begin Column 1 heading) 

Project Cost Element 


Secured 

Funding 

a 

Construction and Major Procurement 111,729 

Real Estate 259,209 

Labor, Services and Support 725,128 

Contingency 101,699 

Financing Costs 82,119 

Totals 1,279,884 

Secured Funding Incurred 57% 

Secured Funding Committed 61% 


Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

3,209 

145,019 

548,717 

- 

82,119 

779,064 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

NOTES: All amounts are Year Of Expenditure dollars in $1,000's 

December 31, 2011 incurred cost figures are unaudited and are subject to change 

Anticipated Funding: 

Funding Source Amount 

State (TCRP) $638 million 

State (STIP) 50 million 

State (SLPP) 47 million 

Federal (New Starts) 900 million 

Local (Meas A, Others) 1,522 million 

Total $3,157 million 

State 

23% 

2,702 

142,513 

503,974 

- 

82,119 

731,308 

Local 

(Meas A) 

48% 

Federal 

28% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

109,027 

116,695 

221,154 

101,699 

0 

548,576 

Artist’s Rendering of Berryessa Station Artist’s Rendering of Milpitas Station 

P-0501 through P-0507, P-0509, P-0728, P-0732, P-3101, P-3124, P-3125 for SVRT Program activities 

through 2018, including the Berryessa Extension Project 

2-4 

6.a

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 

Freight Rail Relocation And Other Corridor 

Establishment And Maintenance 

Estimated Cost: $393.9 million* 


Appropriation Through FY13: $391 million* 

*Includes a net $61.6 million for UPRR right-of-way 

Secured Funding: $320.0 million 

Year of Completion: 2014 

Project Manager: Jim Costantini, Carolyn Gonot 

Designer: HNTB Corporation 


� Relocate freight railroad from VTA-purchased 

right-of-way to existing UPRR right-of-way, between 

Warm Springs Yard and Calaveras Blvd. 

� Build new railroad overcrossing structure at Mission Boulevard. 

� Build roadway underpass at Warren Avenue and Kato Road. 

� Sever shipper freight service south of Montague Expressway. 

� Construct flood control improvements at Berryessa Creek, 

Wrigley Creek, Scott Creek and Line B. 

� Construct creek improvements and environmental mitigation at 

Wrigley Creek and Lower Penitencia Creek 


� The Chevron petroleum pipelines relocation, SFPP/Kinder- 

Morgan petroleum pipeline relocation, and Verizon/MCI 

fiber optic relocation have been completed. 

� The Berryessa Creek crossing, Abel Street Seismic 

Retrofit, and Railroad Relocation contract was 

substantially completed in December 2010. 

� Construction of the Wrigley Creek Improvements is 

complete and the Plant Establishment Period is underway. 

December 2011 

� On the Mission/Warren Truck Rail, work continued on the Agua Fria, Toroges and Agua Caliente Creek 

Improvement Construction Package (C115). Work is underway to develop a master agreement among the 

funding partners and complete other items to support advertisement of Mission Boulevard/Warren Avenue 

Union Pacific Railroad Relocation Construction Contract (C101) for bids. The Alum Rock Fish Passage 

Improvements Package (C111) construction contract will mitigate impacts from the Mission Warren Truck-Rail 

culvert extensions and other drainage improvements. Bids on this contract were received in December 2011. 

� The VTA Board of Directors authorized award of Kato Road Grade Separation (C222) in September 2011. 

Construction work is underway. 

Project Schedule: 

Activity Start End 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Design Early 2008 Mid 2011 

Utility Relocations Mid 2008 Late 2011 

Construction Early 2009 Late 2014 

P-3100, P-3121 through P-3123, P-3126 through P-3129, P-0508 2-5 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate 80,168 



Totals 319,973 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

103,302 

78,400 

62,690 

- 

244,392 

NOTE: All amounts are Year Of Expenditure dollars in $1,000's 




Local (Measure A) $259.1 million 

Local (Fremont) 25.7 million 

Local (SCVWD) 17.5 million 

Local (ACTA) 3.5 million 

Local (ACFC) 1.0 million 

Local (Milpitas) 0.2 million 

State (TCRP, HRCSA, AB1462, Others) 82.7 million 

Federal (FHWA) 4.1 million 

Total $393.9 million 

Aerial view of work on the Agua Fria, Toroges and Agua 

Caliente Creek Improvement (C115) 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

State 

21% 

76,826 

78,281 

57,420 

- 

212,527 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

45,171 

1,887 

30,965 

29,423 

107,446 

Federal 

1% Local (Other) 

12% 

Local 

(Meas A) 

66% 

Backfilling temporary storm drain diversion pipe 

at Kato Road (C222) 

P-3100, P-3121 through P-3123, P-3126 through P-3129, P-0508 2-6 

6.a

Project Manager: Ken Ronsse 

Designer: Rajappan & Meyer 


Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge 

Estimated Cost: $375 million 


Appropriation Through FY13: 

$150.4 million 


Year of Completion: Phase 1: 2014, Phase 2 TBD 


December 2011 

This project will transform Capitol Expressway into a multimodal 

boulevard offering bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail 

transit, and safe pathways with connections to the regional 

trail system. 

Phase I includes pedestrian and bus improvements along 

Capitol Expressway to accommodate pedestrian access and to 

improve safety. It includes new sidewalks and a landscaping 

buffer between the sidewalk and roadway from Capitol Avenue 

to Quimby Road. During this phase, reconstruction of the 

Eastridge Transit Center will also take place. These 

improvements will support subsequent BRT shelters and 

amenities at Story and Ocala as part of the future Santa 

Clara/Alum Rock BRT service. 

Phase II will extend light rail from the existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station to the Eastridge Transit Center. 

Light rail will operate primarily in the center of Capitol Expressway, with elevated track structures crossing 

Capitol Avenue, Story Road, and Tully Road. The Eastridge extension will include three stations: Story 

Road, Ocala Avenue (optional) and Eastridge. 


In May 2005 and in August 2007, the VTA Board of Directors certified the Final Environmental Impact 

Report, and the Supplemental EIR, respectively, and approved the Light Rail Alternative. In order to 

make the projects eligible for federal funding, VTA is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Light Rail Alternative. 

The pedestrian improvement portion includes State (STIP) funding and is now under construction with 

completion scheduled in summer 2012. 

Property acquisition and final design for the transit center and bus stops are underway. Construction is 

anticipated to begin in fall 2012. 


Activity 

Environmental 

Start End 2010 2011 2012 2013 

2014 

Env. Impact Stmt. 

Sidewalk and Landscaping 

Mid 2009 Late 2011 

Design Early 2010 Early 2011 

Construction Early 2011 Mid 2012 

Closeout 

Eastridge Transit Center 

Mid 2012 End 2012 

Design Mid 2010 Late 2012 

Right-of-Way Mid 2010 Early 2012 

Construction Late 2012 Early 2014 

Closeout Early 2014 Mid 2014 

P-0375, P-0476, P-0743, P-0744, P-0787 2-7 

6.a




(Begi n Col umn 2 heading) 

Secured 

Funding 

a 






Totals 109,772 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

8,723 

8,072 

55,136 

- 

9,366 

81,297 






Local (Other) 5.7 million 

State (STIP) 45.0 million 

State (Other) 0.2 million 

TBD 244.6 million 


Local 

(Other) 

2% 

State 

12% 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

4,793 

7,836 

53,588 

- 

9,366 

75,583 

Local 

(Meas A) 

21% 

Other 

(TBD) 

65% 


Excavation at Capitol Expressway Sidewalk at Capitol Expressway 

Balance 

d = (a-c) 

7,769 

1,855 

5,176 

19,389 

- 

34,189 

P-0375, P-0476, P-0743, P-0744, P-0787 2-8 

6.a



$9.0 million 


Year of Completion: Varies 


Kevin Connolly 

Designers: 

TBD 


Light Rail System Improvements 

December 2011 

Description Of Efforts: 

The VTA Board adopted the Light Rail Systems Analysis in May 2010. The Systems Analysis 

provides an evaluation of infrastructure and operational deficiencies of the existing light rail 

system along with a three-phase improvement plan for immediate action. 

Near-term recommended projects from the Light Rail Systems Analysis are as follows: 

• Guadalupe Express. The top priority recommendation from the Systems Analysis will 

reconfigure the southern half of the Light Rail System to allow express trains and integrate 

the Almaden shuttle trains into the larger system. This project will require planning and 

design of a storage track in the Downtown-Civic Center area of San Jose. 

• North First Street Speed Improvements. The Systems Analysis recommended speeding 

up travel times throughout the system but especially on North First Street between Metro 

Airport and Tasman stations. Among the specific project recommendations are fencing the 

trackway to allow for 45 mph operation, grade separations, signal retiming and crossover 

track. 

• Long T Conceptual Engineering. The Phase II recommendation from the Systems Analysis 

developed a series of improvements to the Tasman corridor including double-tracking in 

Mountain View, to allow for express trains and more frequent service to serve the future BART 

station connection at Montague. This project will begin Conceptual Engineering for the Long T 

Improvement. 

• LRT Crossovers. The Systems Analysis identified up to 12 locations where new crossovers 

will improve operational flexibility and safety throughout the system. This project would begin 

design and construction on the highest priority locations. 

Status: 

The Light Rail Systems Analysis was adopted by the VTA Board in May 2010. The initial 

projects recommended from the Systems Analysis began planning, design and construction in 

fall 2011. 


Activity Start End 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Light Rail Systems Analysis Late 2008 Mid 2010 

Guadalupe Express Late 2011 Late 2013 

P-0552, P-0660, P-0722, P-0784 2-9 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 


Contingency 753 

Financing Costs 134 

Totals 8,992 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

- 

- 

2,241 

- 

134 

2,375 






TBD 31.0 million 


Local 

(Meas A) 

22% 


TBD 

78% 

Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

- 

- 

2,231 

- 

134 

2,366 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0552, P-0660, P-0722, P-0784 2-10 

3,205 

- 

2,668 

753 

- 

6,626 

6.a

Estimated Cost: $120 – 160 million 


Extension to Vasona Junction 

Appropriation Through FY13: $12.8 million 


Year of Completion: TBD 


Ken Ronsse 

Ann Calnan 

Designer: N/A 


The 5.3-mile Vasona Light Rail line 

between Downtown San Jose and 

Campbell was opened in October 2005. 

An extension from the end of the line 

at Winchester Station in Campbell to 

Vasona Junction (Winchester Boulevard 

at Route 85) in Los Gatos will add 

another 1.6 miles, two stations, and a 

transit center with parking at Vasona 

Junction. 


December 2011 

Conceptual engineering and both State and Federal clearances were completed in 2000. 

Since 2000, environmental and design conditions have changed and the project needs to 

be re-evaluated and undergo additional environmental review. Accordingly, the remaining 

appropriation of $7.4 million has been reallocated from Measure A funding to future 

Federal. 

Additional environmental studies are underway in order to make this project eligible for 

federal funding. The draft environmental document will be available for public review in 

mid 2012, with final approval from FTA scheduled in late 2012. 


Activity Start End 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Environmental 

Design 

Right-of-Way 

Late 2009 Late 2012 

Construction 

Revenue Service 

Closeout 

Schedule for future activities will be 

established when funding is secured. 

P-0587 2-11 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 

Construction and Major Procurement - 

Real Estate - 

Labor, Services and Support 785 


Totals 811 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 






Other (TBD) 120 -160 million 

Total $120 - 160 million 

- 

- 

694 

- 

694 

Local 

(Meas A) 

1% 

Other 

(TBD) 

99% 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

View of Proposed Alignment Looking North from the Route 85 Terminus 

- 

- 

622 

- 

622 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0587 2-12 

- 

- 

164 

26 

190 

6.a

Estimated Cost: TBD 


$63.8 million 



Project Managers: Ken Ronsse 

Designer: Various 


Capital improvement projects to the Caltrain 

system with the goals of improving service, 

ridership and passenger accessibility. 


Caltrain Service Upgrades 

December 2011 


� Mountain View Parking – Project is inactive until right-of-way needs of High Speed Rail project 

are known, and the plan for future Caltrain capital and operating improvements is determined. 

Funds from the City of Mountain View could be used for preliminary engineering and environmental 

clearance. 

� Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation – Construction is underway and scheduled for 

completion in February 2012. 

� Safety Enhancements – The current phase of the project includes engineering and construction 

for at-grade crossings, with improvements such as pedestrian and swing gates, sidewalks, signing 

and striping, warning bands, and channelization for pedestrians. Construction along the JPB 

segment is completed and design for approximately 15 crossings along the UPRR segment is 

schedule to restart in late February 2012. 

� Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension - This project will provide an extended 

pedestrian tunnel under the UPRR tracks at the Santa Clara Station. Preliminary engineering work 

was completed in early 2011 and final engineering has begun. 

� Santa Clara and Diridon Station Upgrades – In January 2009 the VTA Board approved an 

$11.6 million Measure A contribution to these two station upgrades ($10 million for Santa Clara 

Station, $1.6 million for Diridon Station), which are being implemented by Caltrain. Work was 

consolidated into a single contract, with construction now substantially complete. 

� The Bike Share Pilot Program would initially provide approximately 100 bikes and 10-12 bike 

share stations at one or more Caltrain stations and supporting pod locations. It is envisioned that 

users would be able to transition between transit and bikes seamlessly, connecting to major activity 

centers without the need to drive or walk long distances between transit stops. 


Activity Start End 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Programming Early 2006 Early 2007 

Environmental Mid 2007 Early 2009 

Design Mid 2007 Early 2011 

Right-of-Way Early 2009 Mid 2010 

Construction Late 2008 Late 2015 

Schedule only includes 

projects with approved 

budgets. 

P-0511, P-0740, P-3201 through P-3205 2-13 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Trackage Rights 10,000 

Real Estate 27 




Totals 63,813 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

23,294 

10,000 

22 

16,161 

- 

2,815 

52,292 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

Anticipated Funding (reflects only appropriated budget): 



Local (Mt. View) 0.4 million 

Local (San Jose) 0.3 million 

Local (RM2) 0.5 million 

State (Prop 1B) 7.2 million 

Federal (FHWA) 2.5 million 

Federal (CMAQ) 1.6 million 


Local 

(Other) 

2% 

14,065 

10,000 

17 

14,680 

- 

2,815 

41,577 

State 

11% 

Local 

(Meas A) 

81% 

Federal 

6% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

10,218 

- 

11 

5,140 

6,867 

- 

22,236 

Blossom Hill West Ramp Blossom Hill Cast In Drilled Hole (CIDH) 

Foundation for Bridge Bent 2 

P-0511, P-0740, P-3201 through P-3205 2-14 

6.a

Estimated Cost: $61.9 million 



$61.9 million 


Year of Completion: Phase 1 - 2012 

Project Manager: Ken Ronsse 

Designer: AECOM 


16.5 miles of double track on the Union 

Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor between 

San Jose, in the Coyote area, and Gilroy. 

Capacity improvements for storage of 

additional train sets at Gilroy. 

In late-2004, VTA paid $10 million to 

UPRR as a Capital Access Fee for a 15year 

period for the future addition of 

train pairs No. 6 and 7. (This cost was 

borne by the Caltrain Service Upgrades 

Project – see pages 2-13 and 2-14.) 



Caltrain South County 

Environmental Document: A Statutory 

Exemption (SE) has been filed on the basis that 

construction will be restricted to the UPRR corridor. 

Construction: Fiber optic cable relocation in the 

northerly 5-mile segment is complete. The grading 

contract for Phase 1 (8.3 miles) has been placed on 

temporary suspension while the scope is being 

reviewed in consideration of the recent uncertainties 

in the Caltrain program and the upcoming release of 

the High Speed Rail (HSR) environmental document, 

now scheduled for end of 2011. 

Phase 2 (8.2 miles) Preliminary Engineering was completed in December 2008. 

The project budget identified for Phase 2 has been de-obligated pending analysis of 

future ridership forecasts and service demands of Caltrain, and final alignment of 

future High Speed Rail (HSR) system. 


December 2011 

Activity Start End 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Environmental Mid 2005 Mid 2007 

Design Phase 1 Mid 2005 Early 2009 

Construction Phase 1 TBD TBD 

P-0550, P-0553 2-15 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate 25 



Totals 61,884 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

25,765 

- 

9,092 

- 

34,857 





State (TCRP) $33.0 million 

Local (Measure A) 28.9 million 



Local 

(Meas A) 

47% 

State 

53% 

Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

8,521 

- 

8,890 

- 

17,411 

Typical South County Crossing Llagas Creek Bridge 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

41,485 

25 

1,204 

1,759 

44,473 

P-0550, P-0553 2-16 

6.a


Caltrain Electrification / High Speed Rail 


Appropriation Through FY13: $1.3 million 



Project Manager: Caltrain – PCJPB Staff 

VTA – Steven Fisher 

Designer: Parsons Brinckerhoff 


Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco will be upgraded to an 

electric, fully grade separated system in conjunction with the 

California High Speed Rail Project. The High Speed Rail Project will 

also serve south Santa Clara County through Gilroy and Pacheco 

Pass. In cooperation with Caltrain and the High Speed Rail 

Authority, VTA will participate in planning and engineering activities 

that will ultimately lead to an upgraded Caltrain system. 


California Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure for 

High Speed Rail (HSR), passed in November 2008. This 

provides funding for the initial segments of an HSR line from 

San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim. 

California also received close to $6 billion in ARRA funds. In December 2010, the 

California HSR Authority Board decided to build the first segment of the project in 

the Central Valley, effectively pushing out project implementation in other parts of 

the state until funding is identified. 

When complete, the Caltrain Corridor will contain four tracks – two for Caltrain and 

freight movements, and two for HSR – fully grade-separated, and using electric 

power for both modes. 

The California High Speed Rail Project has opened the opportunity for a joint 

engineering and environmental effort that will cover both modes in the corridor. The 

HSRA has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that will construct HSR and 

an upgraded electrified Caltrain system as one project. HSRA and the JPB have 

begun an engineering effort that will identify a phased implementation approach. 

In conjunction with Caltrain, which is administering the Caltrain Electrification 

project, the budget for this project will partially fund planning and engineering 

activities through FY 2013 and coordination work with Caltrain staff. 


Activity 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Environmental 

Design 

Construction 

Testing & Commissioning 

Revenue Service 

A project schedule will be developed based 

on how Caltrain electrification and the High 

Speed Rail Project will be integrated within 

the corridor. 

December 2011 

P-0595, P-0596 2-17 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 



Totals 1,309 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 



- 

- 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 





448 

- 

448 

- 

- 

447 

- 

447 

Local 

(Meas A) 

100% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

High Speed Rail Simulation - Diridon Station 

P-0595, P-0596 2-18 

- 

- 

777 

85 

862 

6.a

Estimated Cost: $0.7 - $1 billion 



$2.1 million 




Caltrain – Aidan Hughes 

VTA – Kevin Connolly 

Designer: TBD 


This project represents VTA’s share of 

matching funds for a partnership with 

Alameda and San Mateo counties for the 

rebuilding of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. 


Dumbarton Rail Corridor 

December 2011 

The project will rehabilitate rail bridges and tracks that span the bay between Redwood City 

and Newark and make improvements to existing tracks in Union City and Fremont. The project 

will involve the construction of two new rail stations at Menlo Park and Newark, as well as 

upgrades to the Fremont Centerville Station and a new intermodal station at the Union City 

BART station. 


Environmental/Design: Based on the detailed cost estimate prepared by the Peninsula 

Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the project is now projected to cost between $700 million 

and $1 billion. In response, JPB is now exploring various strategies to close the funding 

shortfall and redefine the project by adding more service in an effort to increase ridership. 

The project will complete a Federal Environmental Document in mid 2012. No operating 

funding or an operator has been identified for the proposed service. 

MTC has also reprioritized $91 million in Regional Measure 2 funding from the Dumbarton 

project to the Warm Springs BART extension, with those funds being paid back by the 

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. VTA is participating in a partnership of 

regional transit providers to analyze the cost and benefits of providing Express Bus service in 

the Dumbarton corridor. 


Activity Start End 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Environmental Late 2006 Late 2012 

Design 

Construction 

Project development will proceed on a 

schedule consistent with available funding. 

P-0498 2-19 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 


Contingency - 

Financing Costs 103 

Totals 2,122 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

- 

- 

1,877 

- 

103 

1,980 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 





View of Dumbarton Rail Bridge from the West 

- 

- 

1,874 

- 

103 

1,977 

Local 

(Meas A) 

100% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

Aerial view of the 

existing alignment 

P-0498 2-20 

- 

- 

146 

- 

- 

146 

6.a



Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center 


$0.2 million 




Steven Fisher 

Designer: TBD 


This project will create an intermodal 

facility for trains, buses, bicycles, 

autos and pedestrians, and act as a 

gateway to both Downtown Palo Alto 

and Stanford University. 


December 2011 

This project is inactive. Significant issues related to the High Speed Rail project will need to 

be resolved before further planning work can proceed for this project. 


Activity 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 

Environmental 

Design 

Right-of-Way 

Construction 

Project Opening 

Closeout 

A project schedule will be developed when a 

determination is made concerning the configuration of 

a High Speed Rail stop in Palo Alto. 

P-0529 2-21 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 

Labor, Services and Support 361 

Contingency - 

Totals 361 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 



- 

- 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 




Local (Palo Alto) 0.06 million 

Federal 0.25 million 


214 

- 

214 

Local 

(Meas A) 

14% 

Federal 

69% 

- 

- 

214 

- 

214 

Local 

(Other) 

17% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0529 

Architectural Model of One Proposed Scheme for the 4-Track 

Crossing of University Avenue 

2-22 

- 

- 

147 

- 

147 

6.a


Appropriation Through FY13: $0 

Secured Funding: $0 



San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 

VTA – Steven Fisher 

ACE – Brian Schmidt 

Designer: TBD 


The current ACE service provides 

weekday commute service with four 

trains in each direction between 

Stockton and San Jose. ACE serves 

three stations in Santa Clara County: 

Great America, Santa Clara and 

Downtown San Jose. 

This program will upgrade service by 

providing funds for rolling stock and 

track improvements. 



ACE Upgrades 

December 2011 

VTA staff will work with San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff to implement this program. 

In January 2009 the VTA Board approved a $10 million Measure A contribution to the $26 

million Santa Clara Station project, and this appropriation is included in the Caltrain Service 

Upgrades project. 

The improvements to the Santa Clara Station that will allow ACE trains to stop at the station, 

are described in the Caltrain Service Upgrades project. Work is expected to be complete in 2012 

which will allow ACE trains to resume service to Santa Clara Station. 

ACE, in joint sponsorship with the California High Speed Rail Authority, has begun an 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report looking at alternatives to 

upgrade the ACE rail corridor. 


Activity Start End 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 

Rolling Stock Procurement 

Track Improvements 

Schedule and Scope for Rolling Stock Procurement, Track 

Improvements, and other upgrades will be developed when 

funding is secured. 

P-0590 2-23 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 

Labor, Services and Support - 

Contingency - 

Totals - 

Secured Funding Incurred X 

Secured Funding Committed X 


Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 




No funding has been identified. 

- 

- 

- 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

ACE Locomotive ACE Train 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0590 2-24 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6.a




$114.1 million 

(PE included in Eastridge Ext.) 

Secured Funding: 

$36.3 million 

Year of Completion: 

2015 


Ken Ronsse 

Designer: 

CH2M Hill (PE) 


Bus Program 

BRT - Santa Clara / Alum Rock 

December 2011 

This project will provide a transit enhancement in the county’s highest transit ridership 

corridor from Downtown San Jose to the Eastridge Transit Center on Capitol Expressway. 

The first phase will introduce Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the corridor with dedicated lanes 

on Alum Rock Avenue (eastern segment) and mixed flow operations on Santa Clara 

Street (western segment). This BRT project is being designed in an alignment consistent 

with light rail stations level amenities, enabling a conversion to light rail in the future, if 

desired. 


Project environmental review was completed with the certification of the EIR in 

December 2008. 

Preliminary Engineering was performed from April 2010 to December 2011. Final Design 

will begin in January 2012 and will end in early 2013. Right-of-way acquisition began 

October 2010 and is scheduled to run through late 2012. Utility relocation is expected 

to begin in mid 2013 with bus improvements scheduled for early 2015. Procurement of 

buses for this project is included separately as part of the overall procurement of 

articulated buses for BRT shown elsewhere in this report (see page 2-29). 


Activity Start End 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Environmental Late 2007 Late 2008 

Design Early 2010 Mid 2013 

Right-of-Way Mid 2011 Late 2012 

Construction Mid 2013 Late 2014 

Revenue Service (Santa Clara) Late 2014 N/A 

Revenue Service (Alum Rock) Mid 2015 N/A 

Closeout Early 2015 Late 2015 

P-0475 2-25 

2015 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 

Construction and Major Procurement 40 




Totals 36,286 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

40 

1,610 

8,965 

- 

10,616 






State (Prop 1B) 90.0 million 


BRT Photo Simulation – 

Alum Rock at King 

State 

79% 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

- 

351 

8,152 

- 

8,503 

Local 

(Meas A) 

21% 

BRT Photo Simulation – 

Alum Rock at McCreery 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

40 

7,442 

19,506 

796 

27,783 

P-0475 2-26 

6.a




$19.3 million 


Year of Completion: 2016 


Steven Fisher 

Designer: 

Parsons Transportation Group 


Bus Program 

BRT - El Camino Real 

December 2011 

The proposed alignment extends 16.6 miles from HP Pavilion in downtown San 

Jose to the Palo Alto Transit Center and is an extension of the BRT – Santa 

Clara/Alum Rock project. BRT improvements will consist of new exclusive bus 

lanes, bulb outs, distinct shelters, branded hybrid vehicles, off-board fare 

collection and other improvements along the corridor. The project is envisioned 

to include 16 new BRT stations. 


Conceptual Engineering began in May 2010 with a project environmental review, 

the Caltrans process, and FTA Small Starts review planned to commence in mid- 

2012. Different cross-sections have been analyzed and preliminary ridership and 

traffic projections have been developed. VTA is working with cities to determine 

sections of the Corridor where BRT can use dedicated lanes. 


Activity Start End 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Conceptual Early 2010 Late 2011 

Environmental Late 2011 Late 2012 

Design Mid 2012 Mid 2014 


Revenue Service Early 2016 

Closeout Early 2016 Mid 2016 

P-0717 2-27 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 


Contingency - 

Totals 19,349 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

- 

- 

5,760 

- 

5,760 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 





BRT Photo Simulation 

- 

- 

3,475 

- 

3,475 

Local 

(Meas A) 

100% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

- 

- 

15,874 

- 

15,874 

P-0717 2-28 

6.a



$70.3 million 


$60.4 million 



Kevin Connolly 

Designers: CH2M Hill, 

Parsons Transportation Group 


Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an enhanced bus 

transit service that offers many of the same 

service attributes as rail transit, such as 

specialized vehicles, large stations, realtime 

information, and more frequent and 

reliable operations. VTA intends to develop 

an integrated BRT network throughout the 

County, providing high quality service to 

areas not served by light rail transit (LRT). 


Bus Program 

Bus Rapid Transit 

December 2011 

The VTA Board of Directors adopted the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Strategic Plan in May 2009. Based on the 

criteria established in the Transit Sustainability Policy, the BRT strategic plan recommends moving forward with 

BRT deployment in the Santa Clara/Alum Rock corridor (see page 2-25), and continuing conceptual 

engineering, environmental and other work for the El Camino Real and Stevens Creek Boulevard corridors. 

Work has recently begun on the El Camino Real improvements (see page 2-27). A fourth project, King 

Road, may begin development activity within the next two years. 

• The Stevens Creek Blvd corridor stations and vehicles will feature passenger amenities such as real-time 

information, high quality waiting environments and off-board fare collection. Planning work will continue in 

2012. 

• King Road was identified in the BRT Strategic Plan for future (Phase II) development. However, because the 

BART extension is being delivered in phases, the King Road BRT project will likely be revised as a feeder and 

distributor for BART patrons using the Berryessa Station. 

• Procurement of Articulated Buses required for 2013 service on the Santa Clara Alum Rock and El 

Camino corridors will be initiated in Fiscal Year 2012. Includes bus procurement for SCAR corridor. 

• Funds were included in the adopted FY12/13 Measure A Transit Improvement Program for Facility 

Modifications at the Chaboya and North Divisions required in order to accommodate BRT buses. 


Activity Start End 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Programming Early 2007 Late 2008 

Environmental Late 2008 Mid 2016 

Design 

Scope and schedule will be finalized as 

Construction 

projects are better defined. 

P-0551, P-0715, P-0719, P-0725, P-0783, P-0785 2-29 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 



Totals 60,413 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

- 

- 

2,275 

- 

2,275 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 




Federal (Other) $0.7 million 

TBD $10.0 million 


Specialized BRT Vehicle 

- 

- 

2,248 

- 

2,248 

Federal 

(Other) 

1% 

TBD 

14% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

Local 

(Meas A) 

85% 

38,132 

- 

12,895 

7,138 

58,165 

P-0551, P-0715, P-0719, P-0725, P-0783, P-0785 2-30 

6.a

Bus Program 

ZEB Demonstration and Facility Improvements 



$19.6 million 




Art Douwes 

Manufacturer: 

Gillig / Ballard 


December 2011 

In December 2000, the VTA Board adopted the low-emission diesel path in complying with 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulation to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate 

matter emitted by public transit buses. In accordance with these regulations, VTA, in a joint 

program with SamTrans, implemented a demonstration program to test the viability of zeroemission 

fuel-cell bus (ZEB) technology. 

VTA procured three 40-foot low-floor ZEBs, modified facilities, installed a hydrogen fueling 

station, and provided training for staff, emergency responders and others. The three ZEBs 

started revenue service in February 2005. 

VTA intends to comply with the new CARB regulation for transit agencies which requires that 

15% of all new transit buses purchased by VTA after 2011 be ZEBs. The program will also 

include facilities construction and training to support the increased ZEB fleet. 


The VTA Board has adopted a strategy of partnering with other Bay Area transit properties 

and designating AC Transit as the lead agency for procuring and deploying the Advanced ZEB 

Demonstration vehicles. VTA’s participation will be primarily financial. 

$6.248 million in VTA Enterprise funds were allocated to this effort. (Note that as this work is 

funded entirely with VTA Enterprise funds, not Measure A funds, this amount is not reflected 

in the budget or funding amounts shown in this report.) 

P-0336, P-0449, P-0597 2-31 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 


Contingency - 

Totals 19,569 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

14,405 

- 

5,044 

- 

19,448 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 




Local (SAMTRANS) 4.92 million 

Federal 7.70 million 

State 1.30 million 


State 

7% 

Federal 

39% 

14,405 

- 

5,044 

- 

19,448 

Local 

(Meas A) 

29% 

ZEB in New Maintenance Facility ZEB Hydrogen Fuel Cell 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

107 

- 

- 

13 

120 

Local 

(Other) 

25% 

P-0336, P-0449, P-0597 2-32 

6.a

Bus Program 

Money Counting Facility Replacement 



$4.2 million 




David Sausjord 

Designer: TBD 


This project will construct a new 

revenue processing facility at the 

Cerone Division to replace VTA’s 

existing undersized and inefficient 

Money Room. The existing facility is 

over 30 years old and cannot be 

readily expanded. A new facility is 

required in order to maintain revenue 

security and support the 

implementation of new Ticket Vending 

Machines (TVMs) for planned Bus 

Rapid Transit (BRT) service. 


Work on this project is anticipated to begin in early 2012. 


December 2011 

Activity Start End 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Design Early 2012 Late 2012 


Closeout Early 2014 Mid 2014 

P-0786 2-33 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 



Totals 4,170 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 







- 

- 

- 

- 

- 


Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 

Local 

(Meas A) 

100% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0786 2-34 

1,840 

- 

2,025 

305 

4,170 

6.a


San Jose Mineta Airport 

San Jose Mineta Airport People Mover 


$4.0 million 


$4.0 million 



City of San Jose – 

Henry Servin / Laura Stuchinsky 

VTA – Lilia Scott / Chris Augenstein 

Designer: TBD 


December 2011 

The Airport People Mover Project 

will provide a dedicated guideway 

connection from the San Jose 

International Airport to the 

Caltrain and future BART stations 

at the Santa Clara Transit Center, 

and the VTA Light Rail on North 

First Street. 

The City of San Jose Department 

of Transportation currently leads 

this effort. They envision an 

automated transit network - 

similar to a Personal Rapid 

Transit system - of lightweight, 

automated computer-controlled 

vehicles operated on or 

suspended below an elevated 

guideway, similar to a horizontal 

elevator. 

VTA funds are specific to a connection between the Airport terminals and Caltrain/BART and Light 

Rail, and not any pre-determined technology. 


The City of San Jose has engaged a team of consultants including ARUP to lead planning, and a 

federally funded research center firm, Aerospace, to assess the viability of Personal Rapid Transit 

(PRT) technology for San Jose Mineta International Airport. 


The Requests for Proposal process and subsequent studies are expected to take up to two 

years to complete. 

P-0588 2-35 

6.a





Secured 

Funding 

a 


Real Estate - 


Contingency - 

Totals 4,021 




Dec-11 

Committed 

Costs 

b 

- 

- 

2,044 

- 

2,044 




Dec-11 

Incurred 

Costs 

c 





- 

- 

1,215 

- 

1,215 

Local 

(Meas A) 

100% 


Balance 

d = (a-c) 

P-0588 2-36 

- 

- 

2,806 

- 

2,806 

6.a

Final Cost: $2.5 million 

Closed Projects 

Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements 


Project Manager: Jim Unites 

Designer: Santa Cruz Metro 


Santa Cruz Metro has procured five buses 

necessary to operate service between 

Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Downtown 

San Jose. These buses replaced existing 

buses that are 20 years old, with an 

average of 950,000 miles each. 

The five (5) buses went into service in 

March/April 2011. VTA has reimbursed 

Santa Cruz Metro for the $2.5 million 

purchase price. 

P-0589 

Final Cost: $200.6 million 


Project Manager: Art Douwes 

Contractor: Kinkisharyo 

International, LLC 


Purchased 70 low floor light rail vehicles 

to serve the entire VTA Light Rail system. 

Low floor vehicles provide enhanced ADA 

accessibility and improved service by 

minimizing boarding and exit times for all 

riders. Low floor light rail vehicles 

eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts and 

enhance access for all VTA riders, as well 

as providing additional space for bicycles. 

P-0447 

Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles 

2-37 

6.a

APPENDIX A – COST ESTIMATE CLASSES 

Figure 1 – Cost Estimate Classification Matrix 

(Adapted from AACE Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering, 4 th ed., Chapter 1) 

Estimate 

Class 

Level of Project 

Definition 

Expressed as engineering percent 

completion at time of estimate 

Expected 

Accuracy Range 

Typical variation in low and 

high ranges 

Class 5 0% to 5% -50% to +100% 

Class 4 5% to 25% -30% to +50% 

Class 3 35% -20% to +30% 

Class 2 65% -15% to +20% 

Class 1 90% to 100% -10% to +15% 

Figure 1 shows a mapping of Estimate Class to Level of Project Definition. Intuitively, 

estimates become more accurate and have less uncertainty as project definition increases. This 

table provides a rough framework to describe the accuracy of project estimated costs in this 

report. A discussion of cost estimate classes, in order of increasing accuracy, is presented below: 

� Class 5 (Order-of-Magnitude Estimates) – Order-of-magnitude estimates are sometimes 

referred to as “conceptual” or “ballpark” estimates. These estimates are made without 

detailed engineering data using only basic criteria such as area or distance. An estimate 

of this type would normally be expected to be accurate within +100 percent to -50 

percent. Order-of-magnitude estimates are used to quickly screen several types of 

alternative designs. 

� Classes 4 and 3 (Preliminary Estimates) – Preliminary estimates are prepared once 

enough preliminary engineering has taken place to further define the project scope. An 

estimate of this type is normally expected to be accurate within +50 percent to -30 

percent. Since the preliminary estimate is more definitive than the order-of-magnitude 

estimate, it is better suited for determining project feasibility. 

� Classes 2 and 1 (Final Estimates) – Final estimates are prepared from very defined 

engineering data. This data includes, as a minimum, fairly complete plans and 

specifications. An estimate of this type is usually expected to be accurate within +15 

percent to -15 percent. The final estimate has a level of accuracy that is appropriate for 

setting project budgets. 

A-1 

6.a

APPENDIX B - 2000 MEASURE A BALLOT LANGUAGE 

OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA November 7, 2000 

DISTRICT 

SANTA CLARA VALLY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

A ½ CENT TRANSIT SALES TAX 

To: 

• Connect BART to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara; 

• Build rail connection from San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain, light rail; 

• Purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses; 

• Provide light rail throughout Santa Clara County; 

• Expand, electrify Caltrain; 

• Increase rail, bus service. 

Shall Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority enact a ½ cent sales tax for 30 years 

beginning 4/1/06 when current tax expires, with annual audits published in local newspapers and 

an independent citizens watchdog committee? 

COMPLETE TEXT OF MEASURE A 

Shall the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) be 

authorized to enact a retail transactions and use tax ordinance imposing (a) a tax for the 

privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail upon every retailer in Santa Clara 

County, the territory of VTA; such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent of the gross 

receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold by him at retail in the 

territory of VTA, and (b) a complimentary tax upon the storage, use, or other consumption in 

Santa Clara County, the territory of VTA; such tax to be at the rate of one-half of one percent 

of the sales price of the property whose storage, use , or other consumption is subject to the tax, 

such taxes to be imposed for a period not to exceed 30 years, and to take effect only upon the 

expiration of the current County of Santa Clara 1996 Measure B ½ cent sales tax in April, 

2006, and to be used only to: 

• Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa 

Clara Caltrain Station, specifically, 

To build a BART Extension from Fremont to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara with a 

major connection to the Tasman Light Rail line at the Milpitas BART Station. In San Jose to 

include a BART subway section with stations at San Jose State University, the new San Jose 

City Hall, Downtown San Jose at Market Street, San Jose Arena and the Diridon Multimodal 

Station connecting to Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak, the Vasona Light Rail line and VTA bus 

service. In Santa Clara, to serve Santa Clara University, and the Caltrain Station with a 

B-1 

6.a


people mover connection to San Jose International Airport. 

• Provide Connections from San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and the 

VTA Light Rail, specifically, 

To build a people mover rail line connecting the airport passenger terminals directly with 

BART, Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail line. 

• Extend Light Rail from Downtown San Jose to the East Valley by 

Building a Downtown/East Valley Light Rail line from downtown San Jose serving the new 

San Jose City Hall and San Jose State University, out Santa Clara Street to Capitol Avenue to 

join the Capitol Light Rail line then south to Eastridge Shopping Center. 

• Purchase Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles, specifically 

To better serve disabled, seniors and others; purchase an additional 20 low floor light rail 

vehicles to join the 30 low floor vehicles now being constructed for the new Tasman, Capitol 

and Vasona Light Rail lines and 50 new low floor vehicles to replace VTA's existing 50 light 

rail vehicles. 

• Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy and Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy 

Extend the Caltrain double track from the San Jose Tamien Station through Morgan Hill to 

Gilroy. Provide VTA's funds for the partnership with San Francisco and San Mateo counties 

to electrify Caltrain from San Francisco to Gilroy. 

• Increase Caltrain Service, specifically 

Purchase new locomotive train sets for increased Caltrain service in Santa Clara County from 

Gilroy to Palo Alto and provide additional facilities to support the increased service. 

• Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center 

In partnership with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University, design and construct a new 

parkway and underpass for University Avenue from the campus to downtown Palo Alto to 

improve bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to the campus, Palo Alto Caltrain station and 

downtown Palo Alto. Upgrade passenger facilities at the historic Palo Alto Caltrain station, 

upgrade transit facilities for VTA, SAMTRANS, Dumbarton Express and the Stanford 

Marguerita and Palo Alto shuttle services. 

• Improve Bus Service in Major Bus Corridors 

For VTA Line 22 (Palo Alto to Eastridge Center) and the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, 

purchase new low floor articulated buses. Improve bus stops and major passenger transfer 

points and provide bus queue jumping lanes at intersections to permit buses quick access 

along the corridors. 

• Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 

Provide VTA's matching funds for additional train sets, passenger facilities and service 

upgrades for the ACE Commuter Service from San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. 

B-2 

6.a


• Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service 

Provide VTA's share of funds for the partnership with the Santa Cruz County Transit District 

for additional buses and service upgrades for the Highway 17 Express Bus Service. 

• Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor 

Provide VTA's share of matching funds for a partnership with Alameda and San Mateo 

counties for the rebuilding of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor to connect to Caltrain and train 

sets for this new service conditioned on Alameda and San Mateo County's funding. 

• Purchase Zero Emission Buses and Construct Service Facilities 

Provide funds to supplement federal funds to expand and replace existing VTA diesel bus 

fleet from current size of just over 500 vehicles to 750 vehicles with the new zero emission 

buses and to provide maintenance facilities for this new, clean vehicle propulsion system. All 

new buses to be low floor for easier boarding by seniors and the disabled. 

• Develop New Light Rail Corridors 

Provide capital funds for at least two new future light rail corridors to be determined by 

Major Investment Studies (MIS). Potential corridors include: Sunnyvale/Cupertino; Santa 

Teresa/Coyote Valley; Downtown/East Valley Connection to Guadalupe Line; Stevens Creek 

Boulevard; North County/Palo Alto; Winchester/Vasona Junction; and, initial study of 

BART connection from Santa Clara through Palo Alto to San Mateo County. 

• Fund Operating and Maintenance Costs for Increased Bus, Rail and Paratransit 

Service 

Provide revenue to ensure funding, to at least 2014, and possibly longer, of the following: the 

new Tasman East, Capitol and Vasona Light Rail lines, the commuter rail connection to 

BART, expanded paratransit services, expanded bus fleet of 750 vehicles, the 

Downtown/East Valley Light Rail line operations, which can commence in 2008, and the 

BART extension to San Jose which can commence operations by 2010; 

All subject to the following mandatory requirements: 

• The Tax Must Expire 30 Years After Implementation. 

If approved by the voters, this half-cent sales tax must expire 30 years after 

implementation. The tax will be imposed for the period commencing April 1, 2006 when 

current tax expires and terminate on March 31, 2036. The length of this tax cannot be 

extended without a vote – and the approval – of the residents of Santa Clara County. 

• An Independent Citizen's Watchdog Committee Must Review all Expenditures. 

The Independent Citizen’s Watchdog Committee will consist of private citizens, not 

elected officials, who comprise the VTA’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee. 

Responsibilities of the Citizen’s Watchdog Committee are: 

• Public Hearings and Reports: The Committee will hold public hearings and issue 

reports on at least an annual basis to inform Santa Clara County residents how the 

B-3 

6.a


funds are being spent. The hearings will be held in full compliance with the Brown 

Act, California’s open meeting law with information announcing the hearings wellpublicized 

and posted in advance. 

• Annual Independent Audits: An annual audit conducted by an independent Auditor 

will be done each fiscal year to ensure tax dollars are being spent in accordance with 

the intent of this measure. 

• Publish results of Audits and Annual Reports: The Committee must publish the results 

of the Independent Auditor and the Annual Report in local newspapers. In addition, 

copies of these documents must be made available to the public at large. 

such authorization being pursuant to the provisions of Sections 100250 et seq. of the public 

Utilities Code and Sections 7251 et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 

B-4 

6.a

APPENDIX C – 2000 MEASURE A FUND SWAPS 

Figure 1.3 

Funds Outgoing From Measure A: 

Local Program Reserve Projects Receiving Measure A Funds 

LPR Funds Expended 

Allocated to 

By Board Date 

Sponsor (000s) (000s) Project Status Phase 

VTA $21,000 $14,951 I-880 HOV Widening: SR-237 to US-101 Design /ROW Completed 

VTA $7,644 $4,600 US 101 Improvements (280/680 to Tully) Construction 

VTA $15,670 $13,750 US 101 Improvements (85 to Embarcadero) Design /ROW Completed 

VTA $500 $447 I-880/I-280/Stevens Creek Interchange Prelim Engineering 

VTA $4,500 $4,408 US 101/SR-25 Interchange Env./PA/ED 

VTA/ACCMA $8,000 $147 I-680 Sunol Grade HOV/HOT Lane Construction 

VTA $2,500 $2,497 SR-87 HOV North & South - Cost Increase Completed 

VTA $1,000 $125 SR-152/SR-156 Interchange - Cost Increase Completed 

Gilroy $6,725 $6,725 Gilroy/Arroyo Circle/Arroyo Camino Improvements Completed 

Sunnyvale $524 $524 Mathilda Ave Caltrain Bridge Reconstruction Completed 

SCCounty $450 $331 ITS Enhancements on Bascom Ave Completed 

Morgan Hill $2,510 $2,330 Butterfield Blvd Extension Project Design Completed 

SCCounty $275 $268 Santa Teresa/Fitzgerald Ave Intersection Signals Completed 

Saratoga $400 $0 Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase 2 Not initiated yet 

SCCounty $315 $321 Alum Rock School District Area Traffic Calming Completed 

Sunnyvale $3,725 $0 Mary Ave Extension PS&E Pending 

San Jose $5,076 $4,560 Julian/St. James Downtown Couplet Conversion Construction 

VTA $3,940 $0 I-280 Soundwalls: Bird Ave to Los Gatos Crk Not initiated yet 

VTA $3,860 $0 I-680 Soundwalls: Capitol Xwy to Mueller Ave Not initiated yet 

VTA/SBCOG $5,000 $2,775 SR-152 New Alignment Pre-PA/ED 

Milpitas $1,800 $0 Tasman East LRT Landscaping Construction 

VTA $4,356 $2,805 US 101/Capitol Expwy and Yerba Buena Int. Imp. Design 

VTA $100 $34 VTP Highway Programwide Project Various 

VTA $3,800 $239 US 101 Express Lanes Environmental 

N/A $4,310 $0 Unprogrammed LPR - TBD Unprogrammed 

TOTALS $107,980 $61,837 

Project 

No. Sponsor 

Figure 1.4 

Funds Incoming to Measure A: Projects Receiving STIP Funds 

$'s in thousands 

STIP 

Funds 

Fiscal 

Year Project Status Phase 

P-0476 VTA $57,540 2011 Capitol Expressway LRT Extension - Construction ROW/ Construction 

P-0728 VTA $50,440 2013 

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project - Berryessa 

Extension 

Construction 

TOTAL $107,980 

C-1 

6.a





FROM: Chief Operating Officer, Donald A. Smith Jr. 

SUBJECT: Paratransit Vehicle Procurement 

Date: February 2, 2012 



Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No 

RECOMMENDATION: 

ACTION ITEM 

Authorize the General Manager to procure 70 Toyota Prius vehicles for paratransit service using 

the State of California purchasing contract in an amount not to exceed $ 1,753,000. 

BACKGROUND: 

Paratransit service is required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to 

complement fixed route bus and rail services by offering an equivalent level of transportation 

service for persons who are unable to use the fixed route services due to their disabilities. VTA 

makes paratransit services available to persons who are unable to independently use the bus or 

light rail service due to physical, visual, or cognitive disabilities in accordance with ADA. 

Since 1993, VTA has contracted with Outreach, Inc. to provide ADA paratransit brokerage 

services, based on a competitive procurement. The primary functions of Outreach as the 

paratransit broker include: determining the eligibility of customers to use the service, managing 

customer fate payment accounts, scheduling customer reservations for service, dispatching 

paratransit trips, monitoring and resolving customer service issues and establishing contracts 

with service providers. The service providers provide the operators and management staff to 

provide the actual daily paratransit service to customers who have scheduled trips through 

Outreach. In October 2010, the VTA Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to 

enter into a two-year contract extension with Outreach through June 30, 2013, with three 

additional one-year options. 

Currently, the ADA paratransit fleet is composed of 242 vehicles. 194 have been funded and 


8

provided by VTA, while the remaining 48 are provided and funded by Outreach. Overall, the 

fleet is composed of 101 minivans, 89 Prius sedans, 28 modified vans, and 24 larger “cutaway” 

vehicles. Both parties have made extensive use of state and federal grants to procure these 

vehicles. 

DISCUSSION: 

Five years ago, VTA purchased 173 vehicles for the paratransit program that were placed into 

service in January 2007. The 70 2011 Prius vehicles being proposed for procurement replace 

ones that have operated since then and have an average of more than 200,000 miles. 

The Toyota Prius has been found to be a reliable, functional, fuel-efficient, and cost-effective 

vehicle for paratransit service. It is the most frequently requested vehicle by paratransit 

passengers, especially for those whose disability does not require a large mobility device. The 

vehicle has comparable interior space to larger standard sedans and functions well for 

ambulatory passengers and other passengers who can transfer from a standard wheelchair. Most 

non-electric wheelchairs will fit in the hatch compartment of the Prius. The Toyota Prius’ fuel 

efficiency (44 mpg) has been a key element in reducing paratransit expenses. 

VTA and Outreach both use State of California vehicle procurement contracts for paratransit 

vehicles. The State contracts provide for a competitive purchasing environment with statewide 

competition, while ensuring all federal and state grant requirements are addressed. Utilizing the 

state contract enables VTA to purchase vehicles for paratransit service at the best possible price. 

At this time, VTA is proposing to purchase 70 Toyota Prius vehicles, funded 100% by a state I- 

Bond grant through the Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service 

Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) program. 

ALTERNATIVES: 

The VTA Board may decide not to purchase the 70 Toyota Prius vehicles, or direct staff to use a 

different procurement method. However, doing so will reduce service quality and reliability due 

to operating with an increasingly older vehicle fleet. Staff also doesn’t anticipate that other 

procurement methods will result in lower prices. 

FISCAL IMPACT: 

This action will authorize up to $1,753,000 to procure 70 Toyota Prius vehicles for paratransit 

service. Appropriation for this expenditure is included in the FY 2012 Adopted VTA Transit 

Fund Capital Budget. These vehicles will be funded 100% through the PTMISEA program. 

Prepared by: Jim Unites 

Memo No. 3507 

Page 2 of 2 

8








FROM: Chief Engineering & Construction Officer, Mark S. Robinson 

SUBJECT: Alum Rock Fish Passage Contract 



ACTION ITEM 

Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Stevens Creek Quarry Construction, 

the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $894,200 for the construction of the Alum Rock 

Fish Passage. 

BACKGROUND: 

In December 2002, VTA purchased right-of-way from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for 

use as a transportation corridor extending approximately 15 miles from Fremont to San Jose. To 

fulfill VTA’s obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement with UPRR, VTA has initiated 

Freight Rail Relocation activities to eliminate ongoing freight operations on VTA property and 

clear the corridor for future SVRT Program improvements. 

As part of the Freight Rail Relocation activities, VTA will be constructing improvements at 

Mission Boulevard and Warren Avenue which will have impacts to Toroges, Agua Caliente, and 

Agua Fria creeks. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requires mitigation of 

these impacts as a requirement for issuance of a permit. In February 2011, VTA entered into a 

contract for environmental design services with Winzler & Kelly to complete the design for the 

Alum Rock Fish Passage along Penitencia Creek in the City of San Jose (Exhibit A). Alum 

Rock Fish Passage improvements will mitigate the creek impacts by constructing a roughened 

channel downstream of an existing weir and Youth Science Institute bridge, repairing rill erosion 

with a new mortared rock wall, and modifying a rock wall and expanding the floodplain 

downstream of bridge “L” along Penitencia Creek. In addition, the City of San Jose has 

requested repairs to the Youth Science Institute Bridge be included in the scope of this contract. 


9

The City will fund the repairs per the cooperative agreement between VTA and the City. 

DISCUSSION: 

The Alum Rock Fish Passage contract was advertised on October 4, 2011 to begin the contractor 

pre-qualification and bidding process. Bids were opened on December 21, 2011 with the 

following results: 

Bidder Name Bid Amount 

Stevens Creek Quarry Construction $ 894,200 

Proven Management $1,078,700 

Gordon N. Ball Inc. $1,316,400 

Robert A. Bothman $1,374,485 

Soils Engineering Construction $1,391,975 

Granite Rock dba Pavex $1,496,800 

McGuire & Hester $1,594,000 

RGW $1,744,000 

Engineer’s Estimate $1,553,600 

Stevens Creek Quarry Construction is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The bid is 

58% below the Engineer’s Estimate. Staff has completed a bid analysis, has determined the bid 

to be fair and reasonable, and recommends award of this contract to Stevens Creek Quarry 

Construction. VTA continues to receive a high number of bidders and extremely aggressive 

pricing on infrastructure improvement contracts as a result of a very competitive market 

condition. Stevens Creek Quarry Construction has performed work for VTA in the past 

including similar work on the SR 85 - US 101(S) Planting Project. 

Construction is scheduled to begin in April 2012, with substantial completion by January 2013. 

The maintenance/plant establishment period extends to February 2014. 

ALTERNATIVES: 

The VTA Board may decide not to award this contract, and instead direct staff to seek 

alternatives for the mitigation required by RWQCB. The RWQCB Permit stipulates a 10% 

penalty per year if mitigation is not completed by winter 2013. Delaying the mitigation work 

would result in an increase in mitigation work required, with a resultant increase in design and 

construction costs to VTA. 


This action will authorize $894,200 for construction of the Alum Rock Fish Passage. 

Appropriation for this expenditure is included in the FY12 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit 

Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget. The City of San Jose will contribute the 

approximately $100,000 required to construct the Youth Science Institute Bridge repairs. 

Page 2 of 3 

9

SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION: 

Based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities, a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal of 

13% was established for this contract. The contractor met the goal and has committed to 25.1% 

SBE participation on this contract. 

Prepared by: Rachel Martinez, Asst. Transportation Engineer 

Memo No. 3324 

Page 3 of 3 

9

LOCATION 1 

Install a roughned channel downstream of existing weir. 

LOCATION 2 

Repair of eroded rill at end of north bank vertical rock wall directly adjacent to grade control structure. 

LOCATION 3 

Modification of rock wall and expansion of floodplain on east bank immediately downstream of historic foot bridge "L". 

LOCATION 4 

Youth Science Institute bridge abutment repair; retaining wall, new asphalt concrete pavement, revetment slope, grading. 

LOCATION 4 

LOCATION 2 

LOCATION 1 

LOCATION 3 

N 

9.a

EXHIBIT A 

Location 1. Install a roughened channel downstream of the salmonid mitigation barrier. 

Location 1: Weir area, Salmonid migration barrier 

Location 2. Repair of eroded rill at north bank vertical rock wall directly adjacent to grade control 

structure. 

Location 2: Base of slope with failed rock 

9.a

Location 3. Modification of rock wall and expansion of floodplain on east bank immediately downstream 

of historic foot bridge “L”. 

Location 3: Rock wall looking upstream 

Location 3: Overview of floodplain creation area 

9.a

Location 4. Youth Sciences Institute Bridge abutment repair; retaining wall, new asphalt concrete 

pavement, revetment slope and grading. 

Location 4: YSI Bridge looking downstream, Deodar Cedar at left 

9.a





FROM: Chief SVRT Program Officer, Carolyn M. Gonot 




SUBJECT: BART Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project: Campus, Roadway, and 

Parking Facilities Design and Engineering Services Contract 

Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes 


ACTION ITEM 

Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract for procuring services for engineering and 

preparation of procurement documents related to the Campus Area, Roadway and Parking 

Structures for the Milpitas and Berryessa Stations of the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension 

(SVBX) Project. 

Note: Due to the timing of the consultant interviews, the consultant selection process is not yet 

completed. Following interviews and completion of the evaluation process, a revised 

memorandum with staff’s recommendation will be provided to the Committee. 

BACKGROUND: 

The extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) services into Santa Clara County, known as 

the BART Silicon Valley project, is being implemented under a comprehensive agreement 

between BART and VTA. The extension will be implemented in stages, the first stage being a 

two-station (Milpitas and Berryessa) extension of approximately 10 miles, from BART’s Warm 

Springs station in Alameda County, now under construction, to VTA’s planned Berryessa Station 

in the City of San Jose. This initial segment is known as the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension 

(SVBX) Project. 

In December 2009, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) granted the SVBX project 

permission to enter the initial phase of the federal New Starts funding program. In June 2010, the 

SVBX project received a Federal Record of Decision from the FTA. In April 2011, the FTA 


10

approved the SVBX project for entry into the Final Design phase of the New Starts program. In 

June 2011, VTA formally submitted its request for a $900 million Full Funding Grant 

Agreement (FFGA) to the FTA and is expecting award of the FFGA in March 2012. SVBX 

construction is funded by a combination of sources from the federal FFGA, state funds, and 

Measure A, approved by the voters in November 2000. 

On May 6, 2010, the VTA Board of Directors approved use of the Best Value Design-Build 

approach for implementation of the SVBX project. The Board determined that this method 

would reduce project cost and expedite project implementation, and the action authorized the 

General Manager to proceed with solicitation of Design-Build proposals for the project. 

Following this action, 

• VTA staff prepared the necessary solicitation documents and began the procurement 

process for a Design-Build contract for the Line, Track, Stations and Systems (LTSS) of 

the SVBX project. On December 8, 2011, the VTA Board of Directors approved the 

award of a Design Build contract for the Line, Track Stations and Systems facilities of the 

SVBX Project. The LTSS contract will be the largest single contract for the SVBX 

project, and will provide the final design and construction of the Line, Track, Stations, 

and Systems elements of the SVBX project. It includes two stations, Milpitas, in the City 

of Milpitas, and Berryessa, in the City of San Jose. The LTSS contract also includes the 

guideway, trackwork and systems elements from the Warm Springs extension to south of 

Mabury Road in northeast San Jose. 

• VTA staff further analyzed the method for delivering the remaining SVBX project 

elements including roadways, parking lots, parking garages, and a BART Zone Facility at 

the Berryessa Station. The staff determined that station campus area and roadways are 

project elements that have city and county interfaces and have to be developed in close 

coordination with cities and the county. As the specification of these elements is well 

defined, these elements are best delivered by the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach. 

The parking garages will be procured via the Design-Build process. 

The recommended contract award will provide professional services for the Campus Roadways 

and Parking facilities. The contractor will provide 

• final design for the Milpitas and Berryessa campus areas and for roadways associated with 

the two station areas; 

• prepare the necessary solicitation documents for the construction of Milpitas and Berryessa 

campus areas and for roadways associated with the two station areas; and; 

• prepare the necessary solicitation documents for a Design-Build contract for the 

construction of parking garages at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations. 

DISCUSSION: 

To select a qualified professional design consultant team for the SVBX Campus, Roadway and 

Parking Facilities, VTA issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on November 21, 2011. A Pre- 

Proposal Conference was held on December 5, 2011 to answer any questions and to clarify the 

scope, terms, and conditions of the RFP. Five proposals were received on January 10, 2012 

from: 

• AECOM, 

• ED2 International, 

Page 2 of 3 

10

• URS Corporation, 

• Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., and; 

• WMH Corporation. 

The consultant selection process consisted of a review and evaluation of the written proposals, to 

be followed by oral interviews of those firms whose proposals ranked highest according to 

established criteria. The evaluation criteria included: qualification of project staff and key 

personnel; the experience of the firm, particularly their depth and breadth of technical experience 

working with transit property owners and/or public agencies; demonstrated understanding of the 

project requirements and potential problem areas; and completion of the local firm certification 

indicated a commitment of 50% of the dollar value of services by local firms. 

VTA's selection panel consists of five members from VTA, including Chief SVRT Program 

Officer, Chief CMA Officer, Deputy Director - Engineering and Construction, Transportation 

Engineering Manager of SVBX Station and Campuses, and Contracts Manager, as well as the 

Deputy Director from the City of San Jose Department of Transportation and the Capital 

Improvement Manager from the City of Milpitas. 

ALTERNATIVES: 

There are no practical alternatives to the recommended action that would not adversely impact 

VTA’s ability to develop designs for the Milpitas and Berryessa Campus, Roadway and Parking 

Structures in coordination with the ongoing Line Track Stations and Systems Design-Build 

Contract. 

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION: 

In connection with performance of the contract, a DBE goal of 25% has been established based 

on identifiable subcontracting opportunities. 


This action will authorize funds for final design and preparation of construction procurement 

documents related to the Campus Area, Roadway and Parking Structures for the Milpitas and 

Berryessa Stations of the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX) Project. Appropriation for 

the cost of this work is included in the FY2012 Adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement 

Program Fund Capital Budget. 

Prepared by: Carolyn M. Gonot 

Memo No. 3412 

Page 3 of 3 

10

BERRYESSA ROAD 

DEMOLITION 

AREA B1 

UPPER PENINTENCIA CREEK 

BERRYESSA STATION WAY 

DEMOLITION 

AREA B2 

DEMOLITION 

AREA B1 

LENFEST ROAD 

MABURY ROAD 

10.a

DEMOLITION 

AREA M1B 

CAPITOL AVENUE 

DEMOLITION 

AREA M2 

MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY 

SOUTH MILPITAS BLVD 

DEMOLITION 

AREA M1A 

DEMOLITION 

AREA M2 

10.b





FROM: Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow 




SUBJECT: FY11-12 California Transit Security Grant Program – California Transit 

Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) 



Resolution 

ACTION ITEM 

Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to submit and execute grant applications 

and agreements, certifications, assurances, and other documents as necessary to the California 

Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) to receive $3,344,129 from the FY11-12 California 

Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF). 

BACKGROUND: 

The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, 

enacted by California's voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorizes the issuance 

of nearly $20 billion in general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including grants for 

transit system safety, security and disaster response projects. 

The State of California has appropriated $60 million in Proposition 1B funds to the FY11-12 

California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF). 

These funds are administered by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). 

Funds are allocated to each eligible transit system based on a formula that considers population 

and relative fare revenue collections. VTA is eligible to receive $3,344,129 in this cycle 

The FY11-12 CTSGP-CTAF includes a requirement that eligible transit systems applying for 

funding adopt a Governing Body Resolution authorizing the submittal and execution of grant 


11

applications and agreements, certifications, assurances, and other documents as necessary to 

obtain financial assistance provided by Cal EMA. 

DISCUSSION: 

Cal EMA has allocated $3,344,129 to VTA to implement eligible transit security or safety 

projects. Projects eligible for these funds include the following: 

(A) Capital projects that provide increased protection against a security or safety threat, 

including, but not limited to the following: 

(1) Construction or renovation projects that are designed to enhance the security of public 

transit stations, tunnels, guideways, elevated structures or other transit facilities and 

equipment. 

(2) Explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment. 

(3) Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear explosives search, rescue or response 

equipment. 

(4) Interoperable communications equipment. 

(5) Physical security enhancement equipment. 

(6) The installation of fencing, barriers, gates or related security enhancements that are 

designed to improve the physical security of transit stations, tunnels, guideways, 

elevated structures or other transit facilities and equipment. 

(7) Other security and safety related projects approved by Cal EMA. 

(B) Capital projects that increase the capacity of transit operators to prepare for disaster-response 

transportation systems that can move people, goods, emergency personnel and equipment in the 

aftermath of a disaster. 

(C) Other allowable costs under California Government Code 16727 (a) include costs directly 

related to construction or acquisition, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, 

construction management, architectural, and other design work, environmental impact reports 

and assessments, required mitigation expenses, appraisals, legal expenses, site acquisitions, 

necessary easements, and warranties. 

In February 2011, VTA submitted grant applications to Cal EMA for the following projects: 

(a)CCTV Surveillance Equipment and (b)Passenger Safety Improvements. The final approval of 

funding for these projects is pending Cal EMA’s receipt of a VTA Board adopted resolution 

authorizing the General Manager to execute the grant application and agreement, certifications, 

assurances, and other necessary documents. 

ALTERNATIVES: 

Page 2 of 3 

11

The Board of Directors could choose not to accept the grant or select qualifying security and 

safety projects. Cal EMA has final approval authority over the projects. 


This action will make $3,344,129 available to VTA for eligible capital transit security or safety 

projects. The appropriation for these projects was approved in the Adopted VTA Transit Fund 

Capital Budget for FY 2012 and FY 2013. 

Prepared by: Mike Tasosa 

Memo No. 3463 

Page 3 of 3 

11

Resolution No. ______________ 

FY11-12 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - 

CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND (CTSGP-CTAF) 

FY 2011-12 Proposition 1B 6461-0002 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL AND EXECUTION OF 

GRANT APPLICATIONS AND AGREEMENTS, CERTIFICATIONS AND 

ASSURANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR 

THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

WHEREAS, the State of California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) 

provides financial assistance through the State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to eligible 

grantees, and 

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the recipient of State 

Transit Assistance funds in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and 

WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is an eligible 

grantee for the California Transit Security Grant Program – California Transit Assistance 

Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funding through Cal EMA; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority that the General Manager or the Chief Operating 

Officer or the Chief Congestion Management Agency Officer are hereby authorized to 

file and execute grant applications and agreements, certifications and assurances, and 

other documents as may be necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance 

provided by the State of California Emergency Management Agency. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 

Board of Directors on March 1, 2012 by the following vote: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

11.a

________________________________ 

Ken Yeager, Chairperson 

Board of Directors 

I HEREBY CERTIFY AND ATTEST that the foregoing resolution was duly and 

regularly introduced, passed and adopted by the vote of the Board of Directors of the 

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California, at a meeting of said Board of 

Directors on the date indicated, as set forth above. 

Date: _____________ 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

_________________________________ 

Robert Fabela, General Counsel 

_________________________________ 

Sandra Weymouth, Board Secretary 

11.a

FY11-12 CTSGP-CTAF (Prop 1B) Project Descriptions 

Project A: CCTV Surveillance Equipment 

This project will enhance passenger safety and security by installing closed-circuit television 

(CCTV) video on demand systems and associated equipment at selected light rail stations and 

transit centers. 

Project B: Passenger Safety Improvements 

This investment will implement passenger safety improvements at selected locations throughout 

the light rail operating system. The project will install metal fence barriers at selected locations 

along the light rail right-of-way to protect passengers and the general public from serious or fatal 

injury involving train collision. The barriers will discourage pedestrians from illegally and 

unsafely entering or crossing the light rail tracks at random locations, and direct them to 

signalized crosswalks. 

11.b




FROM: Executive Policy Advisor, Jim Lawson 

SUBJECT: Low Income Transit Discount Analysis 

BACKGROUND: 





Board Chair Yeager and Directors Abe-Koga and Liccardo have asked the Transit Planning and 

Operations Committee to consider a range of possible implications of reducing fares for lowincome 

riders, in response to a question posed by the group People Acting in Community 

Together (PACT). PACT describes itself as "...an inter-faith, multi-ethnic grassroots organization 

that empowers everyday people to create a more just community." 

PACT suggested that a reduced fare for low-income riders could benefit those most in need in 

our Valley, while boosting ridership for VTA. VTA understands PACT's concern and the stated 

desire to find creative ways to address the needs of the less-fortunate in our community. 

Chair Yeager and Director Cortese have also asked staff to look into the possibility of 

distributing unused Eco Passes from County of Santa Clara employees to those in need. This 

suggestion would also be addressed in the analysis. 

DISCUSSION: 

In response to the request, staff has negotiated a scope of work with CH2M HILL to conduct the 

analysis, with the help of VTA staff. The scope of work is presented here as an attachment for 

the Committee's discussion and consideration of next steps. 

Prepared By: Colleen Valles 

Memo No. 3521 



Consultant Services for Fare Program Review 

Scope of Work 

Approach 

The approach to the proposed scope of work includes four study tasks. The objective of each task, task 

our proposed approach to each task, and task deliverables are described here. 

Task 1 – Kick-Off 

The study will begin with a kick-off off meeting to clarify and confirm the project scope, approach, 

objectives, and roles. It will also be an opportunity to whiteboard initial goals and challenges as 

seen by the VTA project team, , establish administrative processes (e.g., protocol/communications 

with all participants, including executive staff and external stakeholders, progress reporting), 

identify stakeholders to be interviewed in Task 2, and initiate data collection. 

In the he interest of conserving resources, and given the established relationships among the VTA and 

CH2M HILL team members, we propose to conduct the kick kick-off off meeting by telephone and to 

follow-up on-site site within a week or two to meet with VTA staff and external stakeholders. 

Task 1 Deliverables: 

§ Kick-off meeting (by telephone) 

Task 2 – Current Conditions 

The objective of the first task is to conduct discussions with internal and external stakeholders 

stakeholders, 

stakeholders 

review fare system information, , and provide information on alternative benefit programs for low 

income riders. These activities will provide the foundation for subsequent study tasks. We will 

also validate the VTA calibration of CH2M HILL’s FARES model that will be used to evaluate any 

across-the-board fare policies. 

We will initiate the study by updating our understanding of VTA’s current fare structure and 

policies (including ridership, revenue and farebox recovery), and developing an understanding of 

the perceptions and concerns of internal and external stakeholders. Using data and information 

available from VTA and from interviews with VTA staff, we will augment our understanding of the 

current fare structure and plans by: 

• Defining the baseline (i.e., the current fare system and associated ed ridership and fare 

revenues), including the UPLIFT pass program, against which alternatives will be compared, compared 

and 

• Reviewing financial constraints, requirements and policies that have implications for fare 

change decisions, including VTA’s farebox recovery goals. 

This task will include interviews with VTA staff from various functions, to discuss current fare 

policies and structure and whether and how to improve the affordability of transit for low income 

persons. External stakeholders, particularly proponents of lower fares for low income riders and 

partner agencies, will also be interviewed during this process. One of the interviews will be with 

Santa Clara County, in part to determine whether the County has any capacity to expand the 

number of UPLIFT passes that it currently provides to indigent residents served by the Department 

of Social Services. The CH2M HILL team will be on-site for four days and available to conduct up to 

January 25, 2012 

Page 1



12 meetings/interviews over that time. We will rely on VTA staff to assist in identifying internal 

and external stakeholders and to set up meetings with them. 

As part of this task, we will also update the overview of peer agencies’ low income fare programs 

that we provided to VTA during the last fare study, in 2007. We will contact the same seven 

transit agencies (i.e., Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle) with 

the objective of identifying any changes they have made to their programs over the last 4- -5 years. 

The scope of this peer review will include fare products, discounts, participating organizations and 

their commitments to the program, requirements to participate in the program, number of fares 

sold and any limitations on the number that may be purchased, 

VTA staff have been maintaining and using CH2M HILL’s FARES model to evaluate alternative fare 

policies and prices, and will use the model in Task 3 to evaluate across-the-board changes to the 

basic fare structure. As part of the current task task, , we will meet with VTA staff to review and validate 

the current calibration of the model. This review will include a discussio discussion n of the work that staff 

have done to calibrate the model. If appropriate, we will recommend changes to the model 

calibration process. 

We will also discuss with staff the results of recent fare changes, to evaluate the elasticities 

associated with each market arket segment in the current calibration of the FARES model. The CH2M 

HILL team proposed for this study recently assessed the potential for another transit agency to 

develop its own, agency-specific elasticitiies. 

. After evaluating the rider responses to five fare 

changes over a 3-year year period, we concluded that the range of fare elasticities for individual fare 

changes was substantial – and in some cases positive elasticity values were calculated – indicating 

that at the data could not be used for purposes of determining age agency-specific specific fare elasticities. 

Further, it was not possible to cleanly estimate the direct response of riders to fare changes 

separately from external factors such as fuel prices aand 

the economy. As a result, agency staff 

and the CH2M HILL team jointly concluded that it was preferable to use industry norms for this 

purpose. 

At the conclusion of this task, CH2M HILL will provide a report summarizing the interviews and 

findings of this task, including ncluding low income programs that merit consideration by VTA, , taking into 

account the discussions with internal and external stakeholders on fare programs for low income 

riders. . We will propose alternatives to the UPLIFT pass program for further evaluatio evaluation, n, from “do 

nothing” (which could include elimination of the UPLIFT pass program or keeping it the way it is 

today) to expanding the program to allow more participants and/or higher discounts. We will also 

consider alternative approaches such as ones that have been adopted by peer transit agencies. 

The Task 2 results will be discussed with VTA project staff, with the objective of defining across-the the-board 

and low income program fare changes to be evaluated further in the next task. 


§ Up to twelve meetings with internal and external stakeholders (over the course of four days) days 

§ One meeting with VTA staff to review the VTA calibration of the FARES model 

§ Single report, in presentation style, summarizing the current fare system objectives and the 

fare structure and programs, focusing on discount/subsidy programs, and the results of the 

interviews with internal/external stakeholders and the peer review. 


Page 2



§ One telephone discussion with VTA staff on the work completed in this task task, , with the objective 

of eliciting input on alternatives for evaluation in the next task 

Task 3 – Sensitivity Analysis 

This task will provide quantitative and qualitative assessments of alternatives to the current low 

income program, including across-the-board board changes to VTA’s basic fare structure structure. 

Using the validated FARES model, SCVTA staff will evaluate the ridership and revenue impacts for 

any across-the-board board fare changes that are designed by the stud study y team. CH2M HILL will assess the 

impacts of changes to low income programs for defined groups of low income riders qualified 

through existing County-administered administered benefits programs. These options could include: 

§ reducing the price of cash fares, day pass passes or monthly passes by 50% for recipients of 

food stamps 

§ offering ffering a $25 monthly pass for General Assistance recipients 

§ offering a reduced-rate rate annual EcoPass to an entire group of residents categorized by 

income. 

In addition to the quantitative analyses of alternatives to the UPLIFT program, CH2M HILL will 

identify qualitative impacts to riders and other considerations, such as the results of conversations 

with the County’s Department of Social Services, partnershi partnership p opportunities and constraints, 

program administration, and potential for fraud or abuse. 

At the conclusion of this task, CH2M HILL will provide a PowerPoint presentation document that 

summarizes the results of analyzing the fare alternatives and meet, by telephone, with VTA project 

staff to discuss the results and recommendations 

recommendations. At this point, VTA staff will have the 

opportunity to request modifications to the alternatives that have been analyzed (e.g., a change in 

proposed pricing), with the objective of narrowing the alternatives to specific recommendations in 

the next task. 


§ PowerPoint presentation and telephone discussion of tthe 

results and potential impacts of 

across-the-board fare reductions and other changes to County-administered administered benefits programs 

Task 4 – Recommendations 

This task will provide recommendations for VTA on affordable fare options for low income riders. 

These recommendations will consider the cost implications of each alternative, how best to 

administer a low income fare program and alternatives for subsidizing it. As part of this task, we 

will consider options for implementing a pilot project, to help inform VTA’s decisions about a more 

permanent program. The CH2M HILL project manager will meet meet, , by telephone, with VTA project 

staff to review and finalize the recommendations. 

The CH2M HILL team will provide a PowerPoint presentation document describing the alternatives 

considered and their administrative and technical feasibility, revenue and cost implications, and 

community benefits. The CH2M HILL project manager will be availab available to make two presentations 

present 

of the updated presentation and recommendations to VTA Advisory Committees and/or external 


Page 3



stakeholders. To conserve study resources, those meetings will be scheduled so that they can be 

completed in a single trip to San Jose. Subsequently, the CH2M HILL project manager will be 

available to provide a presentation to one or more standing committees of VTA’s Board of 

Directors. 


§ PowerPoint presentation document discussing study recommendations 

§ One presentation to VTA staff, , by telephone 

§ Revised presentation document, incorporating recommendations on the most feasible 

alternative 

§ Two presentations to Advisory Committees and/or external stakeholders 

§ One presentation to Board standing committees 

Staffing 

CH2M HILL’s proposed team offers substantial experience in planning and evaluating fare policies 

and strategies and has worked previously with VTA staff to evaluate and recommend fare 

alternatives. Our proposed team for this assignment includes Cyndy Pollan, who will have overall 

technical project management responsibility and will act as the point of contact for the VTA 

Project Manager, and Mark Chang, , who will support the definition and evaluation of alternatives 

alternatives. 

alternatives 

Mr. Chang will also lead the validation of the VTA FARES model. Ms. Pollan and Mr. Chang have 

previously supported fare evaluation efforts for VTA and routinely work together to provide fare 

policy studies for transit agencies in regions such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, 

Phoenix, and Salt Lake City. Ms. Pollan and Mr. Chang will be supported by Joyce Leong, , who is 

based in CH2M HILL’s San Francisco office and will provide data collection and analysis and the 

peer review. 


Page 4





FROM: Chief Information Officer Gary Miskell 

SUBJECT: Clipper Fare Collection System – Final Launch 

BACKGROUND: 

Project History 





Clipper (formerly known as TransLink) is a regional electronic fare collection system sponsored 

by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). While its initial intent was primarily to 

facilitate inter-operator transit trips, the program is now targeted to become the primary means of 

fare collection for both intra- and inter-operator travel within the region. Clipper has been 

implemented and is currently in operation in several Bay Area transit systems including AC 

Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Ferry and Transit, SAMTRANS, and SFMTA. 

Clipper's benefits for customers include simplicity, flexibility, and convenience compared to 

current paper passes and cash payments. With automatic reloading of fare products and e-cash, 

riders will not need to stop and buy paper tickets at light rail stations or use cash on buses. By 

registering the Clipper card, the card's value is secure even if it is lost or stolen. 

The original plan for the Clipper system was to replicate and integrate each participating 

agency’s existing fare policies (e.g. regular and discounted cash fares; transfer rules; day, week, 

and monthly passes; etc.). However, in the course of its development it has been necessary for 

participating transit agencies to make some modifications to their fare policies to accommodate 

Clipper technology. 

The initial development contract for Clipper was awarded in 1999 to a consortium led by 

Motorola, based on hardware and software supplied by ERG Limited (ERG) of Australia. After 

Motorola made a strategic decision to exit the smart card business, ERG took over leadership of 

the contractor team for several years. When ERG ran into financial difficulties, MTC approved a 

transfer of the contract from Motorola/ERG to the Cubic Corporation, a major international fare 


12

collection supplier. 

In February 2010 MTC adopted Resolution 3866, updating the Transit Coordination 

Implementation Plan, including extensive requirements for participation and support of 

TransLink (now Clipper). Among these requirements is that operators shall “implement, 

operate, and promote Clipper as the primary fare payment system for each Operator.” Failure to 

comply may result in sanctions including withholding of funds to operators. In November 2011, 

Resolution 3866 was again updated to include, among other changes, a specific timeline for VTA 

to transition existing fare media to Clipper. The key requirement is that VTA is expected to 

transition its existing printed monthly passes to “Clipper only” by June 30, 2012. 

Following the phased roll-out of Clipper on Golden Gate Ferry and Transit, AC Transit, BART, 

SFMTA, and Caltrain, VTA implemented an initial launch (phase one) of Clipper in early 2011. 

Similar to the “soft launch” approach by several of the other operators, the objective was to test 

the Clipper system using a controlled group of regular VTA riders, plus customers already using 

the Clipper system with adjoining agencies. 

Project Launch Issues 

A key limitation of the initial launch was that Cubic was not able to provide a Clipper alternative 

for VTA’s Day Pass. Also, Clipper did not have in place the full retail network necessary to 

support customers “adding value” to their Clipper cards, including add-value capability at VTA 

light rail ticket vending machines (TVMs). Because of these limitations, and while other 

hardware and software issues were being resolved, VTA has not extensively marketed or 

promoted Clipper during the initial launch to date. VTA staff negotiated with MTC and received 

a $315,000 funding agreement for marketing and outreach activities. The major marketing 

activities include radio and TV commercials on English and Spanish language stations. Print ads 

will be placed in the community newspapers as well as in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, 

Korean, Tagalog and Punjabi language periodicals. Online/digital ads will also be heavily used; 

and VTA will place printed materials on all VTA transit vehicles, most light rail station 

platforms and major bus stops to inform all riders about VTA’s transition to Clipper. 

From March through June, all monthly paper passes will be wrapped in a cover fully explaining 

VTA’s transition to Clipper. The cover will provide monthly pass users information about 

Clipper as well as a call to action. More than 60 outreach activities will be planned to 

supplement the marketing campaign. Multilingual teams will make presentations at schools, 

senior centers, current retail locations (with consignment agreements), immigrant and refugee 

forums and major transit stations to inform customers about Clipper. 

A Clipper version of the VTA Day Pass was developed in fall of 2011 and successfully tested by 

Cubic in December. The Day Pass is being implemented as an “accumulator” that will 

automatically provide customers with an equivalent day pass after they have paid the equivalent 

value of a day pass using Clipper “e-cash”. The Day Pass will be awarded after a rider pays ecash 

for three rides. Cubic has also made significant progress in establishing a Santa Clara 

County retail network, including all Walgreens drug stores. Work on modification of VTA’s light 

rail TVMs is on-going with a current target of summer 2012 to support purchase of multiple 

Page 2 of 4 

12

agency passes, or adding e-cash to customer Clipper Cards. The work necessary to enable the 

TVMs to accept credit cards, while meeting Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards 

(PCI-DSS), has been a significant part of this phase of the project. 

DISCUSSION: 

With the successful development of a Clipper solution for the VTA Day Pass, and progress on the 

retail network and TVM integration program, VTA is now preparing for the final roll-out of 

Clipper to our customers including the transition of monthly passes to “Clipper only” as 

mandated by Resolution 3866. 

In support of the roll-out, VTA will implement a major information campaign to the general 

public starting in March of 2012. 

Facilitating inter-operator travel has been one of MTC’s key goals. To advance this goal, Clipper 

has been designed to automatically provide free or reduced price transfers between operators, 

consistent with existing transfer agreements. For VTA, these agreements address transfers to or 

from AC Transit, BART, Samtrans, and the Dumbarton Express service, and VTA also provides 

fare credits for Caltrain pass holders. (VTA also has transfer agreements or arrangements with 

Altamont Commuter Express, Capitol Corridor, Highway 17 Express, and Monterey-Salinas 

Transit, but these services extend outside of MTC’s jurisdiction and are not included in Clipper). 

Whereas existing transfer agreements address procedures for transfers using paper fare media 

(which must be visually validated by a coach operator or fare inspector), transfers made using 

Clipper are validated electronically by Clipper card readers on the bus or rail platform, without 

any human involvement. Although this has many advantages, the shift towards electronic 

validation has required that rules for accepting transfers be revised to be time-based rather than 

location-based. That is, whereas in the past VTA would accept most transfers only at specific 

locations (at shared stops with AC transit or BART, or anywhere in Palo Alto for Samtrans), in 

Clipper transfers can be accepted anywhere on VTA’s services, as long as the ride history on 

Clipper card shows a prior boarding on a Clipper neighbor agency, within a designated time 

window (typically two hours prior to boarding VTA). This has yet to be fully negotiated 

between VTA, Samtrans, and MTC. 

To date Clipper has been successfully programmed to provide the same transfer benefits to/from 

VTA with AC Transit, BART, and the Dumbarton Express as have been provided under existing 

agreements (using time-based rather than location-based rules). The benefit for VTA riders 

transferring to AC Transit has actually been improved, as AC Transit now provides a credit on 

their system for any VTA rider whose Clipper card shows a prior boarding on VTA within two 

hours (whereas under the former agreement the rider had to show either a VTA day pass or a 

VTA monthly pass). 

For trips to/from VTA and Samtrans, Clipper also provides the same benefits for monthly pass 

holders of each system as previously provided for printed passes. However, Clipper presently 

does not provide the ability for Samtrans to recognize and honor the VTA Day Pass as 

implemented using the day pass accumulator model. Further, per MTC, there are no plans at this 

time to amend Clipper to allow other operators to recognize the VTA day pass. VTA staff is 

Page 3 of 4 

12

continuing discussions with Samtrans and MTC regarding a resolution for this issue that would 

maintain the transfer entitlement for VTA day pass users. One possible option would be a 

reciprocal agreement to provide a credit for any rider transferring between VTA and Samtrans 

(within a two-hour period) similar to the existing Clipper arrangement between VTA and AC 

Transit. This would represent an improvement of the transfer agreement for both VTA and 

Samtrans customers, and would offer the additional benefit of establishing consistency among 

VTA’s agreements with Samtrans, AC Transit, and the Dumbarton Express. Achieving 

consistency in this regard is considered a high priority for VTA. 

Although VTA has not yet extensively promoted Clipper to the general public, testing of Clipper 

during the initial launch period has been successful with about 7,000 Clipper boardings per 

average weekday (about 4% of VTA ridership) in recent months. With the completion of work 

to enable the Day Pass accumulator, and progress on the availability of “reload” locations in 

Santa Clara County, VTA is now poised for Clipper deployment toward a much broader 

audience, utilizing a full marketing roll-out. Consistent with MTC Resolution 3866 

requirements, it is expected that VTA will phase out sales of paper monthly passes, and also, that 

all transfers to and from operators who have implemented Clipper, such as AC Transit, Caltrain, 

BART, and Samtrans, will utilize Clipper only, this will need to be negotiated between VTA 

Samtrans and MTC. 

While VTA shifts into high gear for promotion of Clipper, confirmation of a final date for 

transition of all VTA monthly passes to Clipper remains subject to completion of an analysis 

required by federal law (Title VI) regarding impacts to minority communities, and any required 

mitigations. MTC has previously completed such an analysis for Clipper implementing at the 

five major operators which transitioned before VTA, and is presently working on an update to 

include VTA. Formal adoption of changes to transfer agreements, to reflect a transition to 

Clipper, also remains to be completed pending completion of the Title VI review process. 

Prepared By: Gary Miskell & Ali Hudda 

Memo No. 3510 

Page 4 of 4 

12





FROM: Chief External Affairs Officer, Greta Helm 

SUBJECT: Quarterly Marketing Report 

BACKGROUND: 





Last quarter, VTA implemented several marketing promotions that have been successful in 

stimulating ridership growth on our bus and lightrail system. These promotions offered 

incentives to ride transit to school, family entertainment activities during the holidays, as well as 

during our peak commute hours. By diversifying our marketing efforts, we can reach a broader 

customer base and offset some of the impacts of the slow economy. 

In October 2011, VTA introduced the Youth "S’Cool" Pass. Similar to the Summer Blast Pass, 

the Youth S’Cool Pass offered students a three month pass (October - December) for the cost of 

two months, a very attractive value for families. VTA conducted an extensive marketing 

campaign, which included partnerships with our schools, generating sales of 4,793 S'Cool passes. 

In addition to the S'Cool passes, VTA sold 4,770 standard youth monthly passes in the same time 

period. When taken together, this is equivalent to the sale of 19,149 monthly passes, an 18.6% 

increase when compared to 2010 total youth pass sales, (16,147 youth monthly passes) over the 

same three month period. 

VTA also promoted taking transit to family entertainment activities over the holiday season, 

focusing our efforts on promotion of taking transit to two popular holiday destinations. 

Specifically, VTA ran the historic trolley (branded as the "Candyland Express") on weekends 

throughout the month of December, to attract riders who were attending the holiday fesitvities in 

Downtown San Jose. The Candyland Express carried over 3,225 riders, including many children 

who were getting there first taste of riding transit. VTA also attracted new riders during the 

holidays through our partnership with the Global Winter Wonderland, a new holiday attraction at 

Great America theme park. More than 3,000 VTA bus and light rail customers who rode transit 

to this event received complimentary admission to the park. As an example on the success of the 

promotion in attracting ridership, 167 passengers disembarked at the Great America light rail 


13

station on December 31, 2011 between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. to take advantage of this promotion; 

this is significant when compared to a typical Saturday where the station averages 280 

passengers for the entire day. Average Saturday ridership for Line 57 also experienced a 

significant boost by 21.9%. For the month of December, Lines 57 and 60 serving Great America 

park saw increases of 7.0% and 7.4% respectively. 

In January, VTA launched it's new Express Bus service, and early indications are that the 

wisespread publicity and focused marketing to promote the modified schedules, new routes, and 

amenity filled vehicles are paying off, with increased ridership reported on many of the routes. 

Overall, average weekday Express bus ridership has increased 8.2%, to 3,494, compared to the 

same period last year. Marketing activities emphasized outreach to major employers located 

along the Express Bus routes. In an online survey of passengers who accessed the free wi-fi on 

our new express bus vehicles, 117 passengers (55%) indicated that they have never ridden on a 

VTA Express Bus before! In the coming weeks, Marketing staff will be working with operations 

and planning to analyze ridership data to look for additional opportunities to promote the new 

service. 

Finally, VTA’s marketing partnership with the San Jose Sharks is also proving successful. With 

VTA advertisements appearing on 32 LCD screens around the arena concourse, as well as email 

messages to Sharks fans, light rail ridership to the games are up 14% compared to the same 

period last year. 

DISCUSSION: 

Marketing Efforts & Promotions 

Holiday Service & Free New Year’s Eve Service 

December 25 & 31, 2011 and January 1, 2012 

In December, an outreach effort was developed to inform customers about upcoming holiday 

schedules, and more importantly, the Free New Year’s Eve service. To inform the public about 

these changes, marketing staff implemented the following outreach plan: 

• Messages on the following - VTA website, Interactive Voice Response (IVR), Ticket 

Vending Machine posters, Take One article, and news releases 

• For the Free New Year’s Eve service, Farebox bags were used to cover the fareboxes to 

avoid customers paying for rides 

• Ticket Vending Machines were also disengaged and screen messages were displayed to 

indicate free rides 

• Information sent electronically via GovDelivery, Eco Pass e-newsletter as well as 

Facebook posts and Twitter feeds. 

Candyland Express 

December 2011 

Page 2 of 5 

13

VTA’s historic trolley made a fantastic comeback this holiday season. Riders relived the 

nostalgia of yesteryear by taking a ride on the Candyland Express. This FREE service operated 

on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays in December. The Candyland Express was adorned with 

boughs of holly and spread holiday cheer between the Civic Center and San Jose Diridon stations. 

Every light rail station served by the Candyland Express was transformed into festive stops 

decorated with holiday décor and sweet surprises. 3,225 passengers availed of the FREE rides. 

Express Bus Promotion 


On January 9, 2012, VTA introduced new buses that enhanced service and were designed to 

transform one’s commute from a stressful driving experience to a comfortable and convenient 

transit ride. VTA is now operating 20 new diesel-electric hybrid commuter buses that were 

specifically designed for VTA’s Express Bus Service. These buses were outfitted to 

accommodate longer commutes and feature amenities such as reclining, high-back seats, free wifi, 

overhead storage racks, footrests and reading light. 

To promote the service, VTA implemented the following marketing elements: 

• Email campaign 

• Geo-targeted online ads 

• VTA wi-fi splash page ads 

• Outdoor billboards 

• Print collateral including bus shelter ads, coffee sleeve advertisements, gas station ads 

• Radio commercials 

• Direct mail offering 1 free express day pass 

Service Changes 


On January 9, 2012, VTA implemented major bus and light rail changes in addition to launching 

the express bus service, a part of a multi-year plan developed after a series of public meetings in 

Spring 2011 and then later approved by the VTA Board of Supervisors. To inform the public 

about these service changes, the following outreach efforts were implemented: 

• VTA Bus and Light Rail interior carcards 

• Updated public timetables 

• Placed light rail station posters and A-frame signage at affected stops/stations 

• Created web banner for vta.org with link detailing service changes 

• E-mail blasts/GovDelivery messages were sent to all Eco Pass partners, Title VI 

organizations, contacts through our Rideshare partner. 

• Other VTA collateral produced - Riders Notices on LRT station display cases, onboard 

flyers on affected routes, messages on the Video Message Boards, Ticket Vending 

Machines and Public Announcement system, VTA Take One articles and service change 

brochures. 

• VTA created a major service change brochure that included translations into five foreign 

Page 3 of 5 

13

languages -Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog and Korean 

Current and Recent Partnership 

VTA continues to partner with public and private sector organizations to promote riding VTA to 

community events and local destinations. These partnerships increase the public’s awareness of 

VTA service and stress the ease of taking VTA to these popular destinations. 

With these in-kind promotional partnerships, VTA generally provides partner organizations with 

valuable public exposure through select advertising media such as VTA’s Take-One monthly 

passenger newsletter, the VTA web site, and transit ad spaces. In exchange, VTA receives an 

equivalent amount of recognition and advertising exposure, such as logo placement or 

promotional message in the partners’ collateral and promotional activities. Marketing completed 

the following promotional partnerships during the third quarter of FY 2012: 

San Jose Rep: A Christmas Carol 

November 15 - December 15, 2011 

VTA partnered with the San Jose Rep to promote the Charles Dickens Classic “A Christmas 

Carol”. The performance delivered a feast for the senses as the audience followed Scrooge on 

his transformational journey to rejoin the world, find redemption and discover what it means to 

be human. VTA riders enjoyed a $10 discount on admission by presenting a valid VTA fare at 

the San Jose Rep box office. 

Downtown Ice 

November 21, 2011 - January 29, 2012 

Holiday festivities returned to Santa Clara County with traditional events including Christmas in 

the Park and Downtown Ice. This is the second year that Hawaiian Airlines and Kristi 

Yamaguchi and her Always Dream Foundation sponsored Downtown Ice. As before, patrons 

who showed a valid VTA bus or light rail pass saved $2 off the cost of admission. VTA 

highlighted bus service to the location and were placed in all collateral produced by Downtown 

Ice. 

Global Winter Wonderland 

November 25, 2011 - January 2, 2012 

Santa Clara County residents enjoyed the United States premier of the Global Winter 

Wonderland, a magical Chinese Lantern festival that celebrated holiday traditions from around 

the world! 

Headlining the event were larger-than-life replicas of the worlds’s most fascinating iconic 

landmarks: India’s Taj Mahal, Paris’ Eiffel Tower, Mexico’s Chichen Itza and San Francisco’s 

Golden Gate Bridge, to name a few. The partnership provided VTA 3,000 complimentary 

tickets which were used to increase VTA ridership to the event held at the Great America 

Parking lot in Santa Clara. Residents who rode VTA to the event on December 3, 10, 17 and 31 

and arrived between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. were given one free ticket to enter the Global Winter 

Wonderland festival. All 3,000 tickets were given away. 

Page 4 of 5 

13

Stuff the Bus/Toys for Tots 

December 10, 2011 

VTA partnered with the United States Marine Corps for the annual Toys for Tots/Stuff the Bus 

holiday campaign. VTA typically offers the Marine Corps use of a VTA bus to place all 

collected toys during the event. This year, VTA provided two hybrid buses to showcase VTA’s 

goal of going green. The event netted more than $600 in cash and more than 5,300 toy donations 

filling up almost 1 ½ buses. 

Prepared by: Dino Guevarra, Sales & Promotions Supervisor 

Prepared By: Dino Guevarra 

Memo No. 3201 

Page 5 of 5 

13





FROM: Chief SVRT Program Officer, Carolyn M. Gonot 




SUBJECT: Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Real Estate Update 


The BART Silicon Valley Program is an extension of the existing BART regional heavy rail 

system to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, which will be delivered through a phased 

approach. The first phase is the Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX) Project, a 10-mile, 

two-station project, which will extend the existing BART system and provide service to the cities 

of Milpitas and San Jose in Santa Clara County. The SVBX Project will begin south of the future 

BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceed on the WP Milpitas Corridor purchased by 

VTA from the Union Pacific Railroad in 2002, through Milpitas, and end in the Berryessa area of 

north San Jose at Las Plumas Avenue. Approximately 102 acquisitions, which include full and 

partial acquisitions, of land currently owned by both private and public property owners, would 

be required in order to construct the SVBX Project as currently designed. 

The acquisition process is administered pursuant to applicable federal and State statutes and 

regulations, including the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Guidelines (25 CCR Ch. 6) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition for Federal and Federally-Assisted Programs (49 CFR Part 24). Pursuant to the 

foregoing provisions, an offer of just compensation is made to the owner(s) of record. The offer 

is based on an independent appraisal that has been reviewed by both an independent review 

appraiser and VTA staff. VTA staff and consultants attempt to reach a negotiated agreement 

with the property owner(s) and avoid litigation. However, if no resolution can be reached, the 

owner is informed that VTA intends to seek VTA Board approval to initiate eminent domain 

proceedings in order to advance the Project towards completion. It is within the Board’s 

discretion whether to approve going forward with eminent domain proceedings or not. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, VTA staff and/or consultants continue to negotiate with the 

property owner(s) to reach an acceptable agreement without litigation. 

To date, VTA staff has made 27 offers and the VTA Board has approved 10 Resolutions of 


14

Necessity. In order to maintain the Project schedule, VTA staff anticipates that 5 additional 

Resolutions of Necessity may be presented to the Board for adoption during the March, 2012 

Board meeting if negotiations are unsuccessful. Again, the Board has the discretion to approve or 

reject any Resolution of Necessity. 

Property 1: 

Located in San Jose, CA 

Property consists of 55.85 acres. 

Interests required on this property are: 2 FEE acquisitions (33,873 sq.ft and 540 sq.ft); 5 Utility 

Easements (3,853 sq.ft, 3,898 sq.ft, 805 sq.ft, 9,631 sq.ft and 2,711 sq.ft); 2 Temporary 

Construction Easements (25,627 sq.ft and 772 sq.ft) and 1 Roadway Easement (11,243 sq.ft). 

Property 2: 

Located in San Jose, CA 


Interests required on this property are: 3 Utility Easements (2,615 sq.ft, 2,715 sq.ft and 10,091 

sq.ft) and 1 Ingress/Egress access Easement (26,217 sq.ft) 

Property 3: 

Located in Milpitas, CA 


Interests required on this property are: 3 FEE acquisitions (2,671 sq.ft, 96 sq.ft and 173 sq.ft); 1 

Storm Drain Easement (245 sq.ft); 1 Sanitary Sewer Easement (3,195 sq.ft); 3 Utility Easements 

(5,394 sq.ft, 1,785 sq.ft and 4,206 sq.ft) and 3 Temporary Construction Easements (18,109 sq.ft, 

730 sq.ft and 3,147 sq.ft). 

Property 4: 


Property consists of approximately 21.2 acres 

Interests required on this property are: 1 FEE acquisition (4,586 sq.ft) and 1 Temporary 

Construction Easement (3,524 sq.ft). 

Property 5: 


Page 2 of 3 

14

Property consists of approximately 6.817 acres 

Interests required on this property are: 1 FEE acquisition (3,873 sq.ft) and 1 Temporary 

Construction Easement (3,955 sq.ft). 

Prepared By: Bijal Patel 

Memo No. 3224 

Page 3 of 3 

14

Project Map 

14.a

Agenda - Thursday, February 16, 2012 - VTA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?