Valley Transportation Authority

Transcription

1 SAIITA CLARA Valley Transportation Authority November 5, 2014 Mr. Christopher Lepe Senior Community Planner, Silicon Valley TransForm 48 South ih Street, Suite 102 San Jose, CA Dear Mr. Lepe: Thank you for your letter of October 28, As we work to advance the extension of BART service to San Jose and Santa Clara, input and support from organizations like TransForm is very helpful. Your letter raised many important points. In this letter, we have furnished responses and additional requested information. The information is organized according to the themes outlined in your letter. Your letter advised VTA to "consider multiple options to achieve the greatest return on investment for BART Phase II." You also state that VTA has "recommended a two station option for BART Phase II, eliminating or postponing the Alum Rock and Santa Clara stations." We would like to clarify this latter point. VTA staff is indeed evaluating multiple project configurations. However, we are not recommending any one configuration at this time. VTA intends to evaluate a range of alternatives through the draft environmental review process. This process will hopefully lead to the selection of a preferred alternative by the VTA Board of Directors in early 2016 to include in the final environmental impact documents. The selection will likely be based on several factors, including the availability of funding. The Board's decision on the preferred alternative must include a viable funding plan in order to receive a federal environmental clearance (Record of Decision). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) process for federal funding includes not only the completion of the environmental clearance process but a rigorous analysis of the project to determine the value of their investment in the proposed project. TransForm requested VTA to "disclose data and assumptions behind BART Phase II Alternatives". Attachment A to this letter is a matrix that provides a detailed breakdown of the FTA rating criteria, the breakpoints for the various rating levels (where applicable), and the assumptions used in our preliminary analysis. The table is separated into the two areas of criteria: Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment. VTA conducted this planning exercise to gauge where the 4-station project and alternatives might rate in the FTA New Starts federal funding process. Some elements of the analysis of the Project Justification criteria are based on approximated values. For example, projected population and employment - the basis for ridership estimates- was based on demographic data published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in ABAG llor1h firs1 S1r ee1 So n Jose, CA Adminis1ro1ion Cus1omer Se rvice

2 Mr. Christopher Lepe November 5, 2014 Page 2 of 5 typically publishes updated projections biannually, and FTA will require us to use the most current projections as we advance through the New Starts process. The 2009 data was used for the preliminary analysis because it was the latest year for which ridership modeling was readily available. We will develop updated ridership estimates using the most current data as we progress through the process. Note that our initial analysis was intended to assess the relative strength of the alternatives compared to one another. While future updates to the ABAG demographic projections may result in adjustments to the ridership estimates, this is likely to affect each of the alternatives to a similar degree, so that the relative ranking of alternatives should remain approximately the same. The analysis of the "Local Financial Commitment" criteria relies heavily on project cost and availability of funding and project funding shortfall. The chart below depicts the scenarios that VTA evaluated, the proposed sources of funds, and the potential shortfall. BART Phase II Scenarios with Capital Costs and Sources of Funds 5.0 Shortfall$ " Minimum of $1.1 bllion New Starts $1.4 ballon Measure A Station Alternative 3-Statlon Alternative (Alum RO<k, Oownto\'~1. Oiridon,{Aium RO<k, Oowntovm, Oiridon) Santa Clara)' $3.9 b ~lion $4.7 bilion 3-Station Alternative (Downtown, Dir idon, Santa Clara) $3.7 balion 2-Station Alternative (Dm.ntown and Oirldon) $3.4 billion! -Station Alternative (Oiridon Station) $2.9 bi lion The 4-Station Alternative cost includes a full maintenance facility at Newhall. The other alternatives include 100-vehicle storage and minor maintenance facilities at Newhall. Analysis of Measure revenue forecast is underway. Th e results from this analysis will determine the extent of Measure A revenue that may be available for projects and estimate the Shortfall$ for SVRT Phase II. VTA agrees with your stated recommendation to "deeply engage surrounding communities and key stakeholders before selecting a preferred alternative." As noted above, VTA has not yet selected a preferred alternative for the Phase II project. The public involvement process is just beginning, and will include a comprehensive schedule of public meetings and extensive stakeholder outreach and engagement, which will be compliant with FTA's October 1, 2012 Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for FTA Recipients Circular which provides guidance and instructions to recipients of FTA financial assistance for carrying out U.S. DOT's Title VI regulations (49 CFR part 21). This public involvement effort will continue through the environmental process, leading to selection of a preferred alternative.

3 Mr. Christopher Lepe November 5, 2014 Page 3 of5 Attachment B provides an overview of the federal and state environmental schedule and the FTA New Starts process schedule. Some of the points in this part of your letter suggest a possible misunderstanding of VTA's position. You refer to VTA staff's "recommendation for the two-station BART Phase II preferred scenario and the moving of the proposed Alum Rock station from 28 1 h to 23'd Street." VTA staff is considering design refinements that lower the project cost because funding ava ilability is a concern. One alternative alignment concept is to modify the guideway alignment to pass over the US 101 freeway on a bridge within right-of-way owned by VTA rather than tunneling under the freeway as previously planned. This alignment could potentially save significant cost but would preclude the station configuration that has been previously vetted with the public. With this alternative alignment, the most practical location for an Alum Rock station would be at 23'd Street. However, staff has not " recommended" this option; it has only been identified as a concept for further study. TransForm recommends VTA to "partner with the City of San Jose to preserve and grow the ridership base around BART station areas." VTA concurs that increases in affordable housing and transitsupportive development intensities in station areas is beneficial to transit ridership. We strongly support the city's efforts in this regard and look forward to partnering with the City of San Jose on efforts to expand intensity of housing in station areas. Redevelopment plans involving higher housing densities have been approved by the City of San Jose for all proposed Phase II station locations within the city {Alum Rock, Downtown and Diridon). VTA has also partnered with the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara on the development of a station area plan for redevelopment of the area surrounding the Santa Clara station site. Your letter referred to a specific FTA planning grant. VTA and the City of San Jose thoroughly discussed the grant and chose not to pursue it in part because our project does not meet the minimum eligibility requirements of the grant. To be eligible, projects must be either already in the New Starts pipeline or have initiated a NEPA review process prior to the publication date of the grant. Our Phase II project does not satisfy either of these requirements. After further discussions with FTA, there could be opportunities to pursue the next round of planning grants in partnership with the City of San Jose. The recommendation to "pursue additional funding options for BART Phase II" is a priority for VTA in delivering the entire BART Silicon Valley Program. Our recent analysis indicates that additional funding sources will be required for all of the proposed alternatives, even the least costly ones. VTA will aggressively pursue additional sources of funding for VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II. However, VTA will only be successful if all stakeholder parties are willing to explore a range of options, such as value capture around BART stations and Cap & Trade proceeds. Finally, TransForm requested that VTA "provide greater clarity in the reporting of overall spending of 2000 Measure A funds." Your letter inquired about the use and availability of Measure A funds. Table 1

4

5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL NEW STARTS RATING OF PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVES REVISED 10/29/2014 (Planning Exercise) (MAP 21 Criteria following FTA s Final Policy Guidance, August 2013 and Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, July 2014) Metric Mobility Improvements: Total Linked Trips Using Project* 1-Station Alternative (Diridon) 8,606,000 annual trips 2- Station Alternative (Downtown & Diridon) 12,494,000 annual trips 3-Station Alternative #1 (Alum Rock, Downtown, Diridon) 13,833,000 annual trips PROJECT JUSTIFICATION RATING (50% of Overall Project Rating) 3-Station Alternative #2 (Downtown, Diridon, Santa Clara) 14,457,000 annual trips 4-Station Alternative (Alum Rock, Downtown, Diridon, Santa Clara & Newhall Yard)*** 15,729,000 annual trips Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-High Rating Breakpoints (FTA 2013 **) H 30 million MH million M million ML million L < 2.5 million Weight of Rating 16.6% Comment Linked trips (all trips with one or both trip ends occurring on the BART extension) based on ABAG land use Projections Per FTA criteria, annual trips by the transit dependent riders from households in bottom income quartile of Bay Area households are counted double. Environmental Benefits* 6.9% ($4,747,000 in annual benefits) 12.0% ($9,685,000 in annual benefits) 10.8% ($10,252,000 in annual benefits) 9.9% ($10,561,000 in annual benefits) 8.0% ($11,205,000 in annual benefits) Medium-High High High Medium-High Medium-High H > 10% MH 5 to 10% M 0 to 5% ML 0 to -10% L < -10% 16.6% Benefits in air quality and safety are due to significant reductions in auto vehicle miles travelled (VMT) resulting from all extension alternatives. FTA criteria provide factors for converting VMT reductions to equivalent annual benefits. The benefits are then expressed as a percentage of project cost. Congestion Relief Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium 16.6% Default rating of medium assigned to all projects by FTA until new rule issued. Cost-Effectiveness* $10.77 $8.70 $9.31 $9.90 $11.90 Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium Medium-Low H < $4.00 MH $ M $ ML $ L > $ % Annualized cost per linked trip. For this metric, transit dependent trips are not doubled as for mobility improvements. Higher CE value = lower rating. Trips are an average of forecasts based on Current Year (2014) and Horizon Year (2035) conditions. Annualized cost is capital cost of improvements spread over their respective service lives plus annual change in operating costs due to the project (including changes to VTA system in response to the project). Economic Development Medium High Medium Medium-High Medium Qualitative 16.6% Qualitative measure based on future development trends, transit supportive zoning and related land use policies. Economic development potential is particularly strong for Downtown, Diridon and Santa Clara stations but weaker for Alum Rock because even with the recent Urban Village plan, the total station-area development potential is lower than other station areas. Land Use Medium-Low Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Partially Qualitative 16.6% Land Use is a composite metric incorporating quantitative and qualitative measures based largely on existing land uses in station areas. Current land uses are not transit supportive at Alum Rock and Santa Clara (except to the west where there is a Caltrain station), and they are still emerging at Diridon. Downtown San Jose offers a strong, pedestrian friendly environment compared to all other proposed station locations. SUMMARY RATING Medium-Low Medium-High Medium Medium Medium-Low 100% * FTA specifies that forecasts of trips and VMT be based on current conditions (i.e., 2014 population and employment) but allows them to be averaged with forecasts for a Horizon Year 20 years out (~2035). Estimates based on 2009 modeling factored up for changes in population/employment model was used because it is the most recent available model that has been reviewed/accepted by FTA. VMT reductions are also based on the 2009 model results. ** Most recent FTA rating breakpoints available at the time of analysis were 2013 criteria. New breakpoints have not been published in ***Cost of full Newhall Yard maintenance facility is $388 million and was included as part of this preliminary planning evaluation. Note: Preliminary assessment conducted by VTA. FTA conducts the rating process when a project enters the New Starts Engineering phase under MAP-21, using data provided by VTA.

6 Metric Current Condition * Commitment of Funds * Reliability / Capacity * SUMMARY RATING Initial Raised One Level OVERALL PROJECT 1-Station Alternative 2- Station Alternative 3-Station Alternative #1 Alum Rock 3-Station Alternative #2 Santa Clara LOCAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT RATING (50% of Overall Project Rating) 4-Station Alternative Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium Medium Medium-Low Rating Breakpoints Blend of rating breakpoints for various sub-criteria, some specific and some qualitative % of local capital funds committed: H > 75% MH > 50% M > 30% ML > 10% L < 10% % Committed O&M Funds: H > 75% MH >50% M >30% ML reasonable plan to secure funds L No plan to secure funds Weight of Rating Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Low Qualitative 50% Medium-High raised to High Medium Medium-High raised to High Medium- High Medium raised to Medium-High Medium raised to Medium-High Medium-Low (No Change) Medium Medium Medium-Low * Based on 2012 VTA Financial Model, which was reviewed and accepted by FTA at the time of grant approval for Phase I. 25% 25% 100% Comment All alternatives will rate the same because this metric is an assessment of the agency s current condition, using a composite weighting of: Average Bus Fleet Age Bond Rating if Less than 2-Years Old Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Historic agency cash flow Recent Service History/Service Cutbacks Commitment of funds is composite weighting of: Percentage of Non-5309 Capital Funds Committed/Budgeted: VTA has committed at least 75% of the local capital funds required for the one- and twostation alternatives, and >50% for the other alternatives. Percentage of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Funds Committed/Budgeted: At least 75% of O&M funds are committed for each alternative. In fact, Measure B 1/8-cent sales tax is projected to fully cover BART net O&M costs. However, the 4-Station alternative adds close to $40 M to VTA s annual O&M costs while the 1- and 2-Station alternatives would add about $4 M and $6 M, respectively, a significant difference that is reflected in the rating since the rating is based on the O&M cost of the entire transit system, not just the extension. 1-Station and 2-Station financial plans are more conservative than 3- and 4-Station plans and have less capital cost risk and lower impact on VTA s capital and operating budget. Specific factors considered in establishing the rating include: Capital/Operating Planning Assumptions Historically Consistent: Capital plans hinge on substantial funds from unspecified sources except for the 1-Station alternative. For other alternatives unspecified funding ranges from approx. 18% for 2-Station to 36% for 4-Station alternative. Reasonableness of Capital Cost Estimate: Lower sub-rating for options with more underground stations due to inherent risks of underground construction. Adequacy of Meeting State of Good Repair Needs: Financial resources exist to maintain assets in good condition for the 1-, 2- and 3-Station alternatives. 4- station alternative has higher capital and operating costs so it presents more risk. Project Sponsor Financial Capacity to Withstand Cost Increases (i.e., Access to Funds via Debt, from Reserves, or Other Sources): Rating considers VTA s short- and long-term borrowing capacity. Higher capital costs of alternatives with more stations or added maintenance facilities involve greater risk of cost growth. Also, the higher the absolute cost of an alternative, the greater the cost impact of a given percentage increase in construction costs. Summary rating is raised one level for 4 of the 5 alternatives because of proposed local overmatch, i.e., over 50% of capital funds would be from local sources. (Alternatives must, however, be initially rated Medium or higher. The 4-Station alternative does not achieve this threshold therefore no change. )

7 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Release Notice of Preparation Draft SEIS/SEIR Final SEIS/SEIR NEPA/CEQA Process Scoping Meetings/ Public Hearings End of Scoping Period Circulate Draft SEIS/SEIR Document Draft SEIS/SEIR Public Meeting Circulate Final SEIS/SEIR Document Record of Decision New Starts Process Submit Application to enter New Starts Project Development (NSPD) Entry into NSPD Entry into New Starts Engineering FTA Letter of No Prejudice Receive Full Funding Grant Agreement Community Engagement * Scoping Period Public Meetings and Stakeholder Outreach * Community engagement will include scoping meetings, stakeholder outreach, and targeted community forums that fulfill Title VI requirements NEPA/CEQA and New Starts Milestone Schedule Attachment B

8 2000 MEASURE A TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM As of: June 30, 2014 Incurred Cost 1 Projected Cost Project (in $M) (in $M) Status Measure A Measure A Total Total Portion Portion Extend BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station BART SV Program Development and Implementation $ $ $ 18.1 $ 18.1 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance (CEM) $ $ $ 73.4 $ 34.0 Newhall Yard Property Acquired Mitchell Block Parcel Acquired Kato Road Grade Separation Mission/Warren/Freight Railroad Relocation (MWT) Under Construction Lower Berryessa Creek Project (LBC) Montague Reconstruction Project (MRP) Design/ROW Upper Penitencia Creek Trail Connector (UPC) Design BART Silicon Valley Extension Berryessa Extension Project (SVBX) $ $ $ 1,608.9 $ Under Construction Future Extension to Santa Clara (SVSX) 2 $ $ 2.1 TBD TBD Under Development Newhall Maintenance Facility (NMF) $ 25.9 $ 0.5 TBD TBD Under Development BART Core System Modifications (BCS) $ 99.0 $ 42.6 $ $ Ongoing Warm Springs Extension (WSX) (VTA Share) $ 8.0 $ 8.0 $ 0.0 Under Construction Other Supporting Projects Berryessa BART Connector Design (King Road BRT) $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 3.5 $ 3.5 Under Development Northern Light Rail Express (Mountain View Double Track) $ 7.7 $ 7.7 $ 55.4 $ 55.4 Design Santa Clara Pocket Track $ 9.7 $ 9.7 $ 17.2 $ 17.2 Under Construction BART Transit Integration Analysis $ 0.1 $ 0.1 Under Development Provide Connections from Mineta San Jose International Airport to BART, Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail San Jose Mineta Automated People Mover (APM) $ 2.0 $ 2.1 $ - $ - Inactive 3 Extend Light Rail from Downtown San Jose to the East Valley Capitol Expressway Light Rail Extension (CELR) to Eastridge $ 62.2 $ 56.3 Design CELR Phase I Pedestrian Improvements $ 19.0 $ 3.0 $ - $ - CELR Phase I Eastridge Transit Center $ 41.3 $ 26.7 $ 24.2 $ 13.5 Under Construction CELR Phase II LRT to Eastridge $ - $ - Inactive Purchase Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles 70 Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles $ $ - In Service Improve Caltrain: Double Track to Gilroy and Electrify from Palo Alto to Gilroy Caltrain South County Capacity Improvements $ 17.2 $ 2.3 $ - $ - Inactive 4 Caltrain Electrification (VTA Share) $ 4.0 $ 4.0 $ 54.6 $ 54.6 Under Development Increase Caltrain Service Caltrain Improvement Plan/Caltrain Service Upgrades $ 15.4 $ 15.4 $ - $ - Under Development Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure $ 0.3 $ 0.2 Inactive 5 Blossom Hill Pedestrian Grade Separation $ 10.7 $ 1.2 $ - $ - Caltrain Safety Enhancements $ 15.6 $ 15.5 $ 11.4 $ 11.4 /Design Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Underpass Extension $ 2.0 $ 0.7 $ 9.4 $ 9.3 Design Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ 12.2 $ 12.2 $ - $ - Bike Sharing Pilot Project $ 0.8 $ 0.2 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 In Service Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center $ 0.2 $ - Inactive 6 Improve Bus Service in Major Bus Corridors BRT Alternative Analysis/BRT Strategic Plan $ 2.2 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 Santa Clara-Alum Rock Bus Rapid Transit $ 34.5 $ 10.7 $ 84.3 $ 14.3 Under Construction Stevens Creek BRT $ 2.1 $ 2.1 $ - $ - Planning El Camino Real Bus Rapid Project $ 8.2 $ 8.2 $ - $ - Environmental Procure BRT Articulated Buses $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 47.7 $ 28.6 Procurement Modifications of Chaboya and North Division for BRT Buses $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 1.8 $ 1.8 Design Money Counting Facility Replacement $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 4.0 $ 4.0 Upgrade Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Included in Santa Clara and San Jose Diridon Station Upgrade $ - $ - Improve Highway 17 Express Bus Service Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements $ 2.5 $ 2.5 Connect Caltrain with Dumbarton Rail Corridor Dumbarton Rail Corridor $ 2.3 $ 2.3 Inactive 7

9 Project Incurred Cost 1 (in $M) Measure A Total Portion Projected Cost (in $M) Measure A Total Portion Purchase Zero Emission Buses and Construct Service Facilities 3 Zero Emission Buses $ 14.7 $ 3.2 Zero Emission Buses Facility Improvements $ 4.8 $ 2.4 Develop New Light Rail Corridors New Rail Corridors Study $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 Under Development Light Rail Systems Analysis $ 1.7 $ 1.7 Southern Light Rail Express $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.9 $ 1.9 LRT Extension to Vasona Junction $ 0.9 $ 0.9 Environmental Fund Operating and Maintenance Costs for Increased Bus, Rail and Paratransit Service $ $ $ 1,115.7 $ 1,115.7 Ongoing Other Expenditures Cost of Debt $ $ $ $ Ongoing Fund Exchange Payments 8 $ 87.6 $ 87.6 $ 16.3 $ 16.3 Ongoing Miscellaneous Operating Expenses $ 6.0 $ 6.0 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 Ongoing Status Notes: 1. Incurred costs through June 30, Estimated costs includes a 4-station, 6-mile project 3. studies of Automated Transit Guideway System 4. fiber optic cable relocation of the northern segment (5.3 miles) 5. conceptual design 6. project studies 7. preliminary design, ridership studies and conceptual estimates 8. Payments related to exchange of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Measure A funding approval by the Board in June 2007, December 2007, and November 2013

10 October 28, 2014 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Re: Questions and recommendations for BART to Silicon Valley Phase II Dear VTA Board of Directors and staff, TransForm promotes walkable communities with excellent transportation choices to connect people of all incomes to opportunity, keep California affordable and help solve the climate crisis. The purpose of this letter is to outline several key recommendations and questions regarding BART Phase II, many of which we think will influence the development the 2016 ballot measure to fund critical transportation improvements. These include six general themes that we think will help you successfully extend BART to downtown San Jose. Consider multiple options to achieve the greatest return on investment for BART Phase II: VTA staff s presentation on 9/26/14 recommended a two station option for BART Phase II, eliminating or postponing the Alum Rock and Santa Clara stations and keeping only the downtown San Jose and Diridon Transit stations. Considering multiple station alternatives can potentially reduce capital expenses and increasing ridership, which in turn could increase the amount of federal funding by making the project more competitive and free up additional 2016 sales tax funds for other countywide transportation priorities. For example, eliminating or phasing the Santa Clara station would save VTA over a billion dollars for a spur that would provide duplicative service with Caltrain and Amtrak services. We encourage VTA staff to continue evaluating multiple project scenarios to cut costs and achieve the best possible project. Disclose data and assumptions behind BART Phase II alternatives: Although the consideration of multiple station options for BART Phase II is on the right track, we are concerned that the rationale and data behind the low, medium, and high recommendations for each of the alternatives has not been made available to the public. TransForm urges VTA to disclose the data and assumptions for each of the project scenarios, including ridership and cost implications, as well as jobs, housing, and parking assumptions. This data would help members of the public understand outstanding questions, such as: Why will the elimination of the Alum Rock station create a higher ranking project? Why is the newly proposed station at 23 rd St a better option than the 28 th St station? How will the storage and maintenance needs of the extension be satisfied without the Santa Clara spur if VTA decides to terminate or phase the extension at Diridon? Although selecting Diridon as the terminus of the BART line would reduce capital costs, what are MAIN OFFICE: TH STREET, SUITE 600, OAKLAND, CA T: SACRAMENTO: 717 K STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA T: SILICON VALLEY: 48 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 102, SAN JOSE, CA T:

11 the implications for operations? Deeply engage surrounding communities and key stakeholders before selecting a preferred alternative: TransForm understands that this is the beginning of a two-year environmental review and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts funding process for BART Phase II that will include multiple community meetings. We have been assured by VTA staff that multiple project alternatives will be analyzed; however, VTA staff s recommendation for the two-station BART Phase II preferred scenario and the moving of the proposed Alum Rock station from 28 th St to 23 rd St was made without advance disclosure or input from the community. The sudden changes have angered neighborhood leaders and residents that were involved in roughly a decade of community-based planning around the Alum Rock BART station before the plans were formally adopted by the City of San Jose. Unfortunately, only one community meeting will take place before the VTA Board meeting on November 6 th and the location was only recently announced. The justification given for this rapid process with minimal community input is to qualify for federal funding from FTA, yet at a recent BART Environmental Justice Committee meeting the Title VI implications of the Alum Rock decision were mentioned as a potential risk to federal funding. We urge VTA to gain consensus from the community to the greatest degree possible even if it means taking more time before moving forward with a preferred alternative and the federal funding application. Partner with the City of San Jose to preserve and grow the ridership base around BART station areas: In addition, the FTA has encouraged VTA and City of San Jose staff to jointly apply for the for a new $250,000 to $2,000,000 FTA Transit Oriented Development (TOD) grant, with the premise that even stronger transit connectivity and integration between transportation and land use planning, including affordable housing, would improve the project s ranking in federal funding criteria. Earlier this year the City of San Jose voted on a 15% requirement for affordable housing at the Diridon Transit Center, and the FTA grant represents an important next step to implement these housing goals. Applying for the FTA grant is in VTA s interest as a transit provider because studies show that preserving affordable housing near transit will increase transit use. Furthermore, the grant can assist with coordination of transit services at Diridon, including BART, Caltrain, and Bus Rapid Transit. Unfortunately, it appears that VTA staff is no longer considering applying for the grant despite FTA s recommendations. We strongly encourage VTA and the City to jointly apply for this federal funding. Pursue additional financing options for BART Phase II: Public/private partnerships and outside sources of funding beyond the sales tax should be considered to help fund the cost of needed transportation improvements. Given the volatility of the sales tax and the major unmet MAIN OFFICE: TH STREET, SUITE 600, OAKLAND, CA T: SACRAMENTO: 717 K STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA T: SILICON VALLEY: 48 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 102, SAN JOSE, CA T:

12 countywide transportation needs, we strongly encourage VTA to aggressively pursue additional sources of funding for BART Phase II such a value capture policy around the future BART stations, express lane revenue, and Cap & Trade proceeds. Provide greater clarity in the reporting of overall spending of 2000 Measure A funds: Finally, as we look to build consensus for the future 2016 transportation sales tax to fund BART Phase II and other transportation needs, it s important to disclose how the 2000 Measure A sales tax funds have been spent and how much is left to be spent. VTA staff s presentation on 9/26/14 included general information about the use of 2000 Measure A funds; however more specific data and information has been hard to come by. We request that VTA staff provide additional clarifying information on the following questions: Measure A capital spending: What is the funding allocation for each category listed in the Measure A Sales Tax Use of Funds chart in the 9/26/14 VTA staff report? There are no costs specified in the chart. For example: o How much has been spent (incurred & committed) for the SVRT Phase I project? o What are the projects in the other projects category in the staff report and how much sales tax revenue has been incurred and committed for each project? Measure A debt: What are the projects that have contributed to the debt in the incurred costs and committed projects categories in the staff report? For example: o How much of the debt is from BART Phase I? o What is the expected debt to be incurred in the remaining Measure A funds category and how much funding will remain for other projects? What projects will contribute most significantly to the debt costs in the remaining Measure A funds? Measure A operations and maintenance spending: What is the breakdown of operating funds incurred, committed, and expected to be spent from Measure A for the BART extension, Bus Rapid Transit, light rail, and core bus routes, and other VTA services? In closing, TransForm is excited about the opportunity to bring a cost-effective and communitysupported BART extension to downtown San Jose along with other smart transportation investments. We are submitting the recommendations and questions above to make a better case for the BART extension and help VTA make good decisions about what should be in the overall 2016 sales tax package. We look forward to furthering a constructive and open public dialogue about investing in a world-class sustainable transportation network for Silicon Valley. Sincerely, Chris Lepe Senior Community Planner, Silicon Valley TransForm MAIN OFFICE: TH STREET, SUITE 600, OAKLAND, CA T: SACRAMENTO: 717 K STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA T: SILICON VALLEY: 48 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 102, SAN JOSE, CA T: