Exhibit CC 02-02-2016 Item No. 12 Transportation Tax Measure Written Communication, Light Rail and Dedicated Bus Fact Sheet, Letter on Transportation July 2015Lauren Sapudar
Subject:
Attachments:
From: Timm Borden
FW: Light Rail and Dedicated Bus Fact Sheet -2/2/16 Agenda Item 12
Light Rail or Dedicated Bus Lane Information Sheet.pdf
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 3:01 PM
To: City Council
Cc: David Brandt; Grace Schmidt
Subject: Light Rail and Dedicated Bus Fact Sheet -2/2/16 Agenda Item 12
City Council,
From some general questions that have been raised relative to Item 12 tomorrow night (Transportation Tax Measure
Allocations), attached is a fact sheet with some information regarding assumptions and magnitude of costs for Light Rail and
dedicated bus lanes for the Route 85 Corridor. Please keep in mind that these numbers are not based on any level of design and
are only based on available general information from the industry as applied to the length of the Route 85 Corridor. A hard copy
will be available at your desk at the dais.
Timm
1
Light Rail or Dedicated Bus Lane Information Sheet
Cupertino City Council Meeting February 2, 2016 Item #12
Light Rail Characteristics Assumptions:
Typical Train
Length: 91 Feet Long, articulated
Width: -9 Feet
Capacity: 220 people
Top Speed: -66 MPH
2-5 Cars in Train
Car v. Bus v. Light Rail Capacities
Car: Max 2,400 people/lane/hour, assuming 1.2 passengers/car
Bus: Up to 7,000 people/lane/hour, assuming dedicated lane such as BRT, but number typically limited by
demand
Light Rail: Up to 20,000 people/lane/hour, but typically limited by demand. Typical ridership less than 4,000
people/lane/hour, however SF system is approximately 9,000 people/lane/hour
Typical Light Rail Construction Costsi
Construction Cost: $15M (i.e. Sacramento, Salt Lake City) -$179M/mile (i.e. Seattle), but average cost
in U.S. is about $35M/mile
Rough Route 85 Corridor (Route 87 to Highway 101) LRT Cost
18.7 Miles X $35M/mile = $655M, however in 2014 VTA provided information to the Cupertino City
Council in conjunction with their Express Lanes project that a LRT in the Route 85 Median would be
approximately $1.4B, which could be likely due to bay area construction costs and regional factors.
Freeway Lane Expansion Cost
Construction Cost: $1.0M to $8.5M per lane mile with an average of $2M
Bus Lane (BRT) Expansion Cost
Very Roughly $150M for a dedicated lane in the median from Route 87 to Highway 101 in Mountain
View
1 The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures
required. Seattle's new light rail system is by far the most expensive in the US, at $179 million per mile, since it includes
extensive tunneling in poor soil conditions, elevated sections, and stations as deep as 180 feet (55 m) below ground level.
This results in costs more typical of subways or rapid transit systems than light rail. At the other end of the scale, four
systems (Baltimore, Maryland; Camden, New Jersey; Sacramento, California; and Salt Lake City, Utah) incurred
construction costs of less than $20 million per mile. Over the US as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction
costs average about $35 million per mile.
Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Toni Oasay-Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Carl Guardino [mailto:cguardino@svlg.org]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:17 PM
To: Darcy Paul
Subject: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
Dear Darcy-
I look forward to your conversation tomorrow evening at the Cupertino City Council meeting, as you and your colleagues discuss the specifics
of a potential transportation funding measure for next November.
Please find below a letter that I mailed to you and your Council colleagues today, and am now sending via email this evening, as you continue
your conversation.
As always, I am available to you and your colleagues as we continue to work together to improve our transportation system throughout our
County.
Kind Regards,
Carl
February 1, 2016
Dear :
On behalf of the 400 Member Companies who comprise the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I wanted to reach out to thank you for your
efforts to identify local funding solutions to tackle some of our Valley's most pressing traffic challenges.
As we mutually consider a potential transportation funding measure on the November, 2016 ballot, it is our strong belief that we have much in
common:
First, our Member Companies, along with you and your Council colleagues, recognize that decades of under-funding transportation needs at all
levels of government place us in a position to once again seek local funds, with local transparency and accountability, to address local
transportation needs. It is why, for 3-plus years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has been working on sound policy solutions to meet
some of our highest priority transportation needs. It is why you and some of your colleagues in other West Valley & North County cities have
been meeting to discuss needs that face our County as well as your portions of the County. We applaud your efforts.
Second, the results of our work over the past 3-plus years, with our Member Companies and private and public sector partners -along with
your work on a Draft Expenditure Plan -reveal considerable common ground regarding the categories of improvements that should be funded
in any new local measure. For instance, Leadership Group Members, along with you and your Council colleagues, concur that categories
should include street maintenance and pothole repair (with a flexible use of those funds for jurisdictions with a Pavement Condition Index at or
above 70 percent), Caltrain Commuter Rail Improvements, key improvements on our Countywide Expressway system, completing the BART
extension into Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, bicycle and pedestrian improvements (especially near schools) and key improvements on
our Highway interchanges that cause traffic tie-ups that could be better alleviated.
Third, I believe we share a recognition that this is an iterative process. The Leadership Group has invested more than 3 years in reviewing and
developing policy-driven improvements to should help bring some needed traffic relief throughout the County, along with transportation
options to single-occupant automobiles. To your credit, your professional staff and Council have been conducting similar efforts, often in
concurrence with our professional staff. Over the next few months, the Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors will determine
whether to place a measure on the ballot, and -if yes -the specifics for that measure. Like you, we will do our best to provide them with
thoughtfill details 'ah6 wlrat \ve b'elieve is good transportation policy to enhance our quality of life and improve our economic
competitiveness.
Our Request to you and your Council: Over the days and weeks ahead, let's continue to work closely together. At the Leadership Group, we
do not view the work that we have been doing -or the work you have been doing -as "Us Vs. Them." Rather, we view this opportunity as a
chance to collectively develop a plan that is best for all ofus. From what we can tell about the thoughtful plan adopted by the City of Mountain
View, the similarities with our on-going work give us great hope (The need for a local measure, almost all of the same categories to be
funded). Where we will still need to come together is now more focused on how much funding might be allocated to each category of
improvement. We would seek on-going dialogue about these points.
Please allow me to point out three examples of categories which would benefit from further refinement:
* Countywide Alternative Analysis ($500 million): The Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering calls for $500 million to alleviate traffic,
through new transit improvements, after a multi-year Alternative Analysis is conducted countywide. As currently suggested, there is no
guarantee that any of those dollars would return to the West Valley, which we believe would be a lost opportunity. Instead, we suggest (as
professional staff to the Leadership Group) that the Alternatives Analysis be limited in scope to the West Valley Corridor, with a full local
share of$250 million for transit improvements identified in that more geographically-focused Alternatives Analysis.
*Finishing the BART Extension: We appreciate the recognition that we must finish the BART Extension to Downtown San Jose and Santa
Clara. The full extension will carry 90,000 weekday passenger trips, and will travel from Downtown San Jose to Downtown San Francisco in
only 61 minutes (much faster, and much more consistent, than a commute-time trip by automobile). Our only difference is that the amount of
funds in the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering, $1.2 billion, is not the local share needed to finish the extension. As Supervisor
Simitian has pointed out in his public request that additional BART Extension funds be limited to no more than $1.5 billion, such a "cap"
further ensures that at least 75 percent of the remaining funds will be available for other improvements, while still being sufficient to meet the
funding need identified by the VT A to finish the job. The Leadership Group believes that number could be as low as $1.4 billion, which would
still allow us to better compete for the remaining State funds ($750 million) and Federal funds ($1.5 billion) to finish the job.
* Transit Services for Seniors, the Disabled, Students and low-wage workers: Currently, the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering
does not have a category of funding to meet these important needs. We believe that at least $300 million is needed to help meet the needs of
some of our most vulnerable neighbors throughout the County. Please note -these improvements do not always lead to "traffic relief' -as
seniors, the disabled, students and low-wage workers often do not have cars, and often are traveling outside of traditional commute times when
traffic congestion is at its worse. Rather, the Leadership Group simply believes these funds are necessary in any measure that tries to meet the
needs of all of our residents; not just for our workers and their families.
As you consider adoption of a Draft Expenditure Plan at your Council Hearing, it is our hope that you will note all that we have in
common, as well as those items that we will still need to fine-tune. In that way, we can best work together to meet the needs of our Valley
and all of our residents, while also adopting a plan that recognizes the tremendous needs in the West Valley and the North County.
Thank you again for your leadership and support.
Kind Regards,
Carl Guardino
President & CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Carl Guardino, CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
408-501-7864 svlg.org
@Carl Guardino
Fan us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
2
Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Toni Oasay-Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Carl Guardino [mailto:cguardino@svlg.org]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:16 PM
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Savita Vaidhyanathan
Subject: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
Dear S avita -
I look forward to your conversation tomorrow evening at the Cupertino City Council meeting, as you and your colleagues discuss the specifics
of a potential transportation funding measure for next November.
Please find below a letter that I mailed to you and your Council colleagues today, and am now sending via email this evening, as you continue
your conversation.
As always, I am available to you and your colleagues as we continue to work together to improve our transportation system throughout our
County.
Kind Regards,
Carl
February 1, 2016
Dear :
On behalf of the 400 Member Companies who comprise the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I wanted to reach out to thank you for your
efforts to identify local funding solutions to tackle some of our Valley's most pressing traffic challenges.
As we mutually consider a potential transportation funding measure on the November, 2016 ballot, it is our strong belief that we have much in
common:
First, our Member Companies, along with you and your Council colleagues, recognize that decades of under-funding transportation needs at all
levels of government place us in a position to once again seek local funds, with local transparency and accountability, to address local
transportation needs. It is why, for 3-plus years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has been working on sound policy solutions to meet
some of our highest priority transportation needs. rt is why you and some of your colleagues in other West Valley & North County cities have
been meeting to discuss needs that face our County as well as your portions of the County. We applaud your efforts.
Second, the results of our work over the past 3-plus years, with our Member Companies and private and public sector partners -along with
your work on a Draft Expenditure Plan -reveal considerable common ground regarding the categories of improvements that should be funded
in any new local measure. For instance, Leadership Group Members, along with you and your Council colleagues, concur that categories
should include street maintenance and pothole repair (with a flexible use of those funds for jurisdictions with a Pavement Condition Index at or
above 70 percent), Caltrain Commuter Rail Improvements, key improvements on our Countywide Expressway system, completing the BART
extension into Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, bicycle and pedestrian improvements (especially near schools) and key improvements on
our Highway interchanges that cause traffic tie-ups that could be better alleviated.
Third, I believe we share a recognition that this is an iterative process. The Leadership Group has invested more than 3 years in reviewing and
developing policy-driven improvements to should help bring some needed traffic relief throughout the County, along with transportation
options to single-occupant automobiles. To your credit, your professional staff and Council have been conducting similar efforts, often in
concurrence with our professional staff. Over the next few months, the Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors will determine
whether to place a measure on the ballot, and -if yes -the specifics for that measure. Like you, we will do our best to provide them with
though~ful ,details 'as to vihht,~e believe iJ good' transportation policy to enhance our quality of life and improve our economic
competitiveness.
Our Request to you and your Council: Over the days and weeks ahead, let's continue to work closely together. At the Leadership Group, we
do not view the work that we have been doing -or the work you have been doing -as "Us Vs. Them." Rather, we view this opportunity as a
chance to collectively develop a plan that is best for all of us. From what we can tell about the thoughtful plan adopted by the City of Mountain
View, the similarities with our on-going work give us great hope (The need for a local measure, almost all of the same categories to be
funded). Where we will still need to come together is now more focused on how much funding might be allocated to each category of
improvement. We would seek on-going dialogue about these points.
Please allow me to point out three examples of categories which would benefit from further refinement:
* Countywide Alternative Analysis ($500 million): The Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering calls for $500 million to alleviate traffic,
through new transit improvements, after a multi-year Alternative Analysis is conducted countywide. As currently suggested, there is no
guarantee that any of those dollars would return to the West Valley, which we believe would be a lost opportunity. Instead, we suggest (as
professional staff to the Leadership Group) that the Alternatives Analysis be liniited in scope to the West Valley Corridor, with a full local
share of $250 million for transit improvements identified in that more geographically-focused Alternatives Analysis.
*Finishing the BART Extension: We appreciate the recognition that we must finish the BART Extension to Downtown San Jose and Santa
Clara. The full extension will carry 90,000 weekday passenger trips, and will travel from Downtown San Jose to Downtown San Francisco in
only 61 minutes (much faster, and much more consistent, than a commute-time trip by automobile). Our only difference is that the amount of
funds in the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering, $1.2 billion, is not the local share needed to finish the extension. As Supervisor
Simitian has pointed out in his public request that additional BART Extension funds be limited to no more than $1.5 billion, such a "cap"
further ensures that at least 75 percent of the remaining funds will be available for other improvements, while still being sufficient to meet the
funding need identified by the VTA to fmish the job. The Leadership Group believes that number could be as low as $1.4 billion, which would
still allow us to better compete for the remaining State funds ($750 million) and Federal funds ($1.5 billion) to fmish the job.
* Transit Services for Seniors, the Disabled, Students and low-wage workers: Currently, the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering
does not have a category of funding to meet these important needs. We believe that at least $300 million is needed to help meet the needs of
some of our most vulnerable neighbors throughout the County. Please note -these improvements do not always lead to "traffic relief' -as
seniors, the disabled, students and low-wage workers often do not have cars, and often are traveling outside of traditional commute times when
traffic congestion is at its worse. Rather, the Leadership Group simply believes these funds are necessary in any measure that tries to meet the
needs of all of our residents; not just for our workers and their families.
As you consider adoption of a Draft Expenditure Plan at your Council Hearing, it is our hope that you will note all that we have in
common, as well as those items that we will still need to fine-tune. In that way, we can best work together to meet the needs of our Valley
and all of our residents, while also adopting a plan that recognizes the tremendous needs in the West Valley and the North County.
Thank you again for your leadership and support.
Kind Regards,
Carl Guardino
President & CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Carl Guardino, CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
408-501-7864 svlg.org
@Carl Guardino
Fan us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
2
Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Toni Oasay-Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
From: Carl Guardino [mailto:cguardino@svlg.org]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:15 PM
To: Barry Chang
Subject: Council Meeting -Transportation Measure Discussion
Dear Barry-
I look forward to your conversation tomorrow evening at the Cupertino City Council meeting, as you and your colleagues discuss the specifics
of a potential transportation funding measure for next November.
Please find below a letter that I mailed to you and your Council colleagues today, and am now sending via email this evening, as you continue
your conversation.
As always, I am available to you and your c,olleagues as we continue to work together to improve our transportation system throughout our
County.
Kind Regards,
Carl
February I, 2016
Dear :
On behalf of the 400 Member Companies who comprise the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I wanted to reach out to thank you for your
efforts to identify local funding solutions to tackle some of our Valley's most pressing traffic challenges.
As we mutually consider a potential transportation funding measure on the November, 2016 ballot, it is our strong belief that we have much in
common:
First, our Member Companies, along with you and your Council colleagues, recognize that decades of under-funding transportation needs at all
levels of government place us in a position to once again seek local funds, with local transparency and accountability, to address local
transportation needs. It is why, for 3-plus years, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has been working on sound policy solutions to meet
some of our highest priority transportation needs. It is why you and some of your colleagues in other West Valley & North County cities have
been meeting to discuss needs that face our County as well as your portions of the County. We applaud your efforts.
Second, the results of our work over the past 3-plus years, with our Member Companies and private and public sector partners -along with
your work on a Draft Expenditure Plan -reveal considerable common ground regarding the categories of improvements that should be funded
in any new local measure. For instance, Leadership Group Members, along with you and your Council colleagues, concur that categories
should include street maintenance and pothole repair (with a flexible use of those funds for jurisdictions with a Pavement Condition Index at or
above 70 percent), Caltrain Commuter Rail Improvements, key improvements on our Countywide Expressway system, completing the BART
extension into Downtown San Jose and Santa Clara, bicycle and pedestrian improvements (especially near schools) and key improvements on
our Highway interchanges that cause traffic tie-ups that could be better alleviated.
Third, I believe we share a recognition that this is an iterative process. The Leadership Group has invested more than 3 years in reviewing and
developing policy-driven improvements to should help bring some needed traffic relief throughout the County, along with transportation
options to single-occupant automobiles. To your credit, your professional staff and Council have been conducting similar efforts, often in
concurrence with our professional staff. Over the next few months, the Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors will determine
whether to place a measure on the ballot, and -if yes -the specifics for that measure. Like you, we will do our best to provide them with
. tlic5ughtful ·d~tails;.'a's to what 'we believe is good transportation policy to enhance our quality of life and improve our economic
competitiveness.
Our Request to you and your Council: Over the days and weeks ahead, let's continue to work closely together. At the Leadership Group, we
do not view the work that we have been doing -or the work you have been doing -as "Us Vs. Them." Rather, we view this opportunity as a
chance to collectively develop a plan that is best for all ofus. From what we can tell about the thoughtful plan adopted by the City of Mountain
View, the similarities with our on-going work give us great hope (The need for a local measure, almost all of the same categories to be
funded). Where we will still need to come together is now more focused on how much funding might be allocated to each category of
improvement. We would seek on-going dialogue about these points.
Please allow me to point out three examples of categories which would benefit from further refinement:
* Countywide Alternative Analysis ($500 million): The Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering calls for $500 million to alleviate traffic,
through new transit improvements, after a multi-year Alternative Analysis is conducted countywide. As currently suggested, there is no
guarantee that any of those dollars would return to the West Valley, which we believe would be a lost opportunity. Instead, we suggest (as
professional staff to the Leadership Group) that the Alternatives Analysis be limited in scope to the West Valley Corridor, with a full local
share of$250 million for transit improvements identified in that more geographically-focused Alternatives Analysis.
*Finishing the BART Extension: We appreciate the recognition that we must finish the BART Extension to Downtown San Jose and Santa
Clara. The full extension will carry 90,000 weekday passenger trips, and will travel from Downtown San Jose to Downtown San Francisco in
only 61 minutes (much faster, and much more consistent, than a commute-time trip by automobile). Our only difference is that the amount of
funds in the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering, $1.2 billion, is not the local share needed to finish the extension. As Supervisor
Simitian has pointed out in his public request that additional BART Extension funds be limited to no more than $1.5 billion, such a "cap"
further ensures that at least 7 5 percent of the remaining funds will be available for other improvements, while still being sufficient to meet the
funding need identified by the VTA to finish the job. The Leadership Group believes that number could be as low as $1.4 billion, which would
still allow us to better compete for the remaining State funds ($750 million) and Federal funds ($1.5 billion) to finish the job.
* Transit Services for Seniors, the Disabled, Students and low-wage workers: Currently, the Draft Expenditure Plan you are considering
does not have a category of funding to meet these important needs. We believe that at least $300 million is needed to help meet the needs of
some of our most vulnerable neighbors throughout the County. Please note -these improvements do not always lead to "traffic relief' -as
seniors, the disabled, students and low-wage workers often do not have cars, and often are traveling outside of traditional commute times when
traffic congestion is at its worse. Rather, the Leadership Group simply believes these funds are necessary in any measure that tries to meet the
needs of all of our residents; not just for our workers and their families.
As you consider adoption of a Draft Expenditure Plan at your Council Hearing, it is our hope that you will note all that we have in
common, as well as those items that we will still need to fine-tune. In that way, we can best work together to meet the needs of our Valley
and all of our residents, while also adopting a plan that recognizes the tremendous needs in the West Valley and the North County.
Thank you again for your leadership and support.
Kind Regards,
Carl Guardino
President & CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Carl Guardino, CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
408-501-7864 svlg.org
@Carl Guardino
Fan us on facebook Follow us on Twitter
2
S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT FIVE:
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418
supervlsor.slmitlan@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimilian.com
July 24, 2015
Dear Friend,
November 2016 will be here before we know it.
In our respective roles, we are all involved in the continuing talks
about a potential 2016 transportation sales tax measure. As we
consider what that measure might look like, I thought it would be
helpful for you to have a copy of the enclosed report which analyzes
the sources and uses of recent transportation sales tax measures in
Santa Clara County.
As you can see from the attached chart, almost 80% of the revenues
from the past two transportation tax measures (2000 and 2008) have
gone to fund the "BART to San Jose" effort. We all must keep an open
mind, but also certainly keep in n1ind the need for real congestion
relief in the North County and West Valley. I hope you find the
enclosed helpful.
Sincerely,
S. Joseph Simitian
County Supervisor, Fifth District
Enclosures
' ~ ' . ) '
SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX
BALLOT MEASURES: SUMMARY DATA
For the last two ballot measures, 79.6% of the revenues collected have been
allocated for BART to San Jose:
Measure .BART Other Total
2008 Measure B $320,800,000 $320,800,0001
2000 Measure A $3,332,000,000 $938,000,000 $4,270,000,000
Total $3,652,800,000 $938,000,000 $4,590,800,000
1Estimate of amount collected between July 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015.
For the last three ballot measures, 61.5% of the revenues collected have been
allocated for BART to San Jose:
Meas1,Jre BART Other Total
2008 Measure B $320,800,000 $320,800,0001
2000 Measure A $3,332,000,000 $938,000,000 $4,270,000,000
1996 Measure B $1,347,000,000 $1,347,000,000
Total $3,652,800,000 $2,285,000,000 $5,937,800,000
1Estimate of amount collected between July 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015.
Prepared by Kris Zanardi, Policy Aide, Santa Clara County Supervisor S. Joseph Simitian; July 15, 2015.
Source of Data: SCC Roads and Airports Department Transportation Tax Information Memorandum to
Board of Supervisors; March 31, 2015.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX BALLOT MEASURES:
BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
%of % of Project Funds Allocated %ofAnnual
Countywide Countywide Sales
Aye Vote Tax1
DISTRICT 1 (West Vallev I South County I San Jose)
1984 Measure A 20.6% 38.1% 15.01%
1996 Measure B 22.0% 18.4 15.01%
2000 Measure A 21.8% 4.5% (20.4% of non-BART expenditures) 15.01%
2008 Measure B 21.6% 0.0%2 15.01%
Dl % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Includin!Z BART I 12.6%
D1 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Excluding BART I 25.7%
DISTRICT 2 (San Jose)
1984 Measure A 16.3% 3.1% 18.42%
1996 Measure B 12.7% 13.6% 18.42%
2000 Measure A 13.2% 45.8% (30.1 % of non-BART expenditures) 18.42%
2008 Measure B 14.6% 40.0%2 18.42%
D2 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Including BART I 32.3%
D2 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Excluding BART I 14.4%
DISTRICT 3 (San Jose I Milpitas I Sunnvvale)
1984 fyleasure A 16.9% 22.8% 21.75%
1996 Measure B 18.8% 35.2% 21.75%
2000 Measure A 19.9% 38.9% (15.6% of non-BART expenditures) 21.75%
2008 Measure B 18.6% 58.0%2 21.75%
D3 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Includin!Z BART I 36.4%
D3 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Excludin!Z BART I 25.6%
DISTRICT 4 (San Jose I Campbell/ Santa Clara)
1984 Measure A 19.9% 13.4% 28.46%
1996 Measure B 20.6% 21.5% 28.46%
2000 Measure A 20.0% 5.5% (16.4% of non-BART expenditures) 28.46%
2008 Measure B 21.0% 2.0%2 28.46%
D4 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Including BART I 9.1%
D4 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Excluding BART I 16.9%
DISTRICT 5 (North County /West Valley)
1984 Measure A 26.2% 22.7% 16.35%
1996 Measure B 25.8% 11.3% 16.35%
2000 Measure A 24.9% 5.3% (17.4% of non-BART expenditures) 16.35%
2008 Measure B 24.2% 0.0%2 16.35%
D5 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Including BART I 9.1%
D5 % of Total Allocations (All Measures) Excluding BART I 16.9%
Prepared by Kris Zanardi, Policy Aide, Santa Clara County Supervisor S. Joseph Simitian; July 15, 2015.
Source of Data: SCC Roads and Airports Department Transportation Tax Information Memorandum to Board of
Supervisors; March 31, 2015.
t From 2005-2014: (a) Dl generated an average of 15.01% of the annual sales tax collected in the County, with a "high" of
16.01 % 2005 and a "low" of 14.35% in 2012; (b) D2 generated an average of 18.42% of the annual sales tax collected in the
County, with a "high" of 18.65% generated in 2008 and a "low" of 17.90% in 2012; (c) D3 generated an average of 21.75% of
the sales tax generated annually in the County, with a "high" of 22.37% generated in 2010 and a "low" of 21.20% generated
in 2008; (d) D4 generated an average of 28.46% of the annual sales tax collected in the County, with a "high" of 29.92%
generated in 2005 and a "low" of 27.09% generated in 2010; and (e) D5 generated an average of 16.35% of the annual sales
tax collected in the County, with a "high" of 17.87% in 2012 and a "low" of 14.15% generated in 2005.
2 2008 Measure B 1/8 cent tax for future operation and maintenance of BART; collection began July 1, 2012. Estimated
$320.8m collected through March 31, 2015. Amount apportioned by SD based on mileage of BART track within the county
at final build-out (i.e., all the way to Santa Clara).
.·
,'·'
,:· ..
\. :· .·;
. •, ... . •
··' . •.
·\, .·
.......
· .....
h-.
.:'
· .. ,.
. ~ ...
. . :: ..
r'
~ j .:-: ··:
··· .. '.:·.·· ·, .
·/,. ; ...
'.:_;.
.:.
Clara
HoarJs and Airports Depnnment
lo I Skypon Drive
snn Jose. califor11i11 D5 l t (r I :J02
I ·408·573·2400
Date:
To:
From:
March 31, 2015
Board of Supervisors
\S'~\\Jlvrichael Murdter
() Director, Roads & Airports Dept.
Subject: Transportation Tax Information
The Board requested the following information outlined in the referral approved at its
September 23, 2014 meeting (Item 11), which was amended pursuant to Board
discussion and a subsequent letter from Supervisor SimHian dated October 29, 2014:
(1) For the 1984 Measure A, 1996 Measure A/B, 2000 Measure A and 2008 Measure
B, provide the following:
Ii!! The vote distribution, by Board District, both in percentage and total number
of votes for and against.
Ii!! The allocation, by Board District, of the expenditures for transportation
[projects] fonded by the tax revenue.
* The apportionment, by Board District, of the tax revenue generated by the
Measures.
@ Information relating to the expenditures already allocated and expenditures
identified for specific purposes in the future.
@ Information relating to the degree to which expenditures mirrored the uses
specified in the Measures' ballot text.
(2) A presentation regarding the overall County plan to identify needs and priotities
and receive information from the Sant9-Clara Valley Transportation Authol'ity
(VTA) regMding their processes, vision and intent.
Board or Supervisors: Mike Wasserman. Cindy Clrnve?.. Dnve Cortese. Ken Ye<1gcr. S. Joseph Simitian
County Execwivc: Jeffrey v. Srnllll
The following information is provided off-agenda in response to (1) above. The
presentation requested in (2) above will be agendized for an upcoming Board meeting.
Attachment A is the original September 23, 2014 Board referral.
Attachment Bis the letter from Supervisor Simitian dated October 29, 2014 amending
the scope of the referral.
Attachment C contains the actual text of the aforementioned ballot measures as well as
the text of the 1961 Measure A for County Highways and Expressways.
Attachment D provides the vote distribution, by Supervisorial District, both in
percentage and total number of votes for and against, for the aforementioned ballot
measures as well as the 1961 Measure A for County Highways and Expressways and
the 1976 permanent 1/2-cent sales tax for transit.
Attachment E provides the allocation, by Supervisorial District, of the expenditures for
transportation projects funded by the 1984 Measure A.
Attachment F provides the allocation, by Supervisorial District, of the expenditures for
transportation projects funded by the 1996 Measure B.
Attachment G provides the allocation, by Supervisorial District, of the expenditures for
transportation projects funded by the 2000 Measure A and is broken down into two
parts. The first part tabulates BART-related costs (totaling $3.33 billion) and the second
part tabulates all other costs (totaling $937 million). The primary source of cost
information is Attachment H, an October 2014 VT A document entitled "2000 Measure
A Transit Improvement Program" that lists all projects comprising the measure's
expenditure plan. .'-
The request for information distinguishing between measure expenditures already
allocated and expenditures identified for specific purposes in the future applies only to
the 2000 Measure A because all of the 1984 and 1996 measure funding has been
expended and all of the 2008 measure funding is being banked for future BART
operating and maintenance costs. Attachment H provides this information for the 2000
Measure A in the columns entitled "Estimated Cost -Measure A Portion" and
"Incurred Cost -Measure A Portion."
Attachment I is a roll-up summarizing the allocation, by Supervisorial District, of the
total expenditures for projects funded by the 1984, 1996, 2000 and 2008 measures. Since
BART-related expenditures represent such a large component of total expenditures,
staff calculated total expenditures by Supervisorial District both including BART and
not including BART.
t
Regarding the request for information relating to the degree to which expenditures
mirrored the uses specified in the Measures' ballot text, staff has organized this report
in such a way that the reader may compare the ballot measure text (Attachment C) with
the actual project expenditures (Attachments E, F and G) and reach his or her own
conclusion.
Attachment J tabulates the dollar amounts and percentages of the 1 % Bradley Burns
sales tax generated in each Supervisorial District from 2005 -2014. (The dollar amounts
are relevant only in that they are used to calculate the percentage of the total tax
proceeds generated by each District.) Since the overall sales tax rate is simply a
multiple of the 1 % Bradley Burns rate, these percentages also represent the breakdown
by Supervisorial District of all other components of the sales tax including
transportation funding measures. The percentage of overall tax proceeds generated by
each Supervisorial District varies little from year to year; thus the 10-year average for
each district was assumed to represent the source of the sales tax proceeds generated by
each of the local sales tax measures.
Attachment K is a graphic illustrating the relative levels of funding generated by the
four measures for roads vs. transit.
cc: Jeff Smith, County Executive
Gary Graves, Chief Operating Officer
Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive
Emily Harrison, Directo1·, Finance Agency
Lynn Regadanz, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Leg. File 73591)
County of Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors
Supervisorial District 5
Superviso1· S. Joseph Simitian
73591 A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 23, 2014
Board of Supervisors
S. Joseph Simitian, Supervisor
SUBJECT: Transportation tax information
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Attachment A
11
Direct Administration to report to the Board of Supervisors identifying by Board District, the
vote allocation and revenue allocation of the 2000 and 2008 County sales tax increases for
transpo1tation measures. (Simitian)
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, a Valley Transp01tation Authority 0.5 cent sales tax (for a period of
30 years beginning in March of 2006) was approved by Santa Clara County voters for
various transit related measures.
On November 4, 2008, a Valley Transp01tation Authority 0.125 cent sales tax (for a period of
30 years from the onset of matching state and federal funds) was approved by Santa Clara
County voters for BART extension to Santa Clara County, including connection with the
existing Caltrain corridor.
In light of recent effo1ts to place another transportation tax measure on the November ballot,
which has since been postponed but is anticipated to return at a future date, the requested
information would be valuable to assist in discerning both effective and equitable distribution
of potential future transportation project funding.
The report should contain for each tax measure identified above:
Bonrd of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Packet Pg. 302
11
o The vote distribution, by Board District, both in percentage and total number of votes
for and against; and
0 The allocation, by Board District, of the expenditures for transportation measures
funded lJy the tax revenue.
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wusscnnnn, Cindy Chavez, D1wc Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian
Counly Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Agenda Date: September23, 201'1
Paee 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 303
S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT fiIVE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10r11 FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280·0418
supervlsor.slmltlan@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervlsorslmitian.com
October 29, 2014,
Mid1ael Murclter, Director
Roads and Airports Department
101 Skyport Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Mr. Murdter,
Attachment B
At its September 23 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a referral I authored
requesting information about voter-approved sales tax increases for transportation projects.
Specifically, the referral tequested vote allocations and revenue allocations (by supervisorial
district) for both Measure A (2000) and Measure B (2008).
I understand your department will be coordinating the Administration's response to this
referral. Therefore, 1 would like to make the following two requests for H1e inclusion of
additional information in such response:
1. Include vote and revenue allocations (by supervisorial district) for Measure A (1984)
and Measures A & B (1996); and
2. For all measures included, distinguish between expenditures already allocated and
expenditures identified for specific purposes in the fuhire
Thank you for considering these requests. By including this additional information, the
Board will have a fuller understanding of how voter-approved transportation dollars have
been used in our County, and we will be better positioned to make informed transportation
decisions in the future.
Sincerely,
S. Joseph Simitian
Supervisor, Fifth District
cc: Jeff Smith, County Executive
Local Initiative Ballot Measures
for Transportation Improvements
in Santa Clara County
Ballot Measure Text
2008 Measure B
Attachment C
To reduce dependence on foreign oil, help relieve soaring gas prices and combat climate change,
shall the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority enact a 1 /8 cent sales tax limited to thirty
years for BART to operate/ maintain/ improve the 16.1 mile Santa Clara County BART extension,
with stations in Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, connecting with Caltrain from Gilroy to San
Francisco and an Airport People Mover, to be collected only if sufficient state/federal funds are
secured to match local construction dollars?
2000 Measure A
% CENT TRANSIT SALES TAX
to:
o Connect BART to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara;
o Build rail connection from San Jose Airport to BART, Caltrain, light rail;
o Purchase vehicles for disabled access, senior safety, clean air buses;
o Provide light rail throughout Santa Clara County;
o Expand, electrify Caltrain
o Increase rail, bus service
Shall Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority enact a % sales tax for 30 years beginning
4/01/06 when current tax expires, with annual audits published in local newspapers and an
independent citizen's watchdog committee?
1996 Measure B
Shall the Board of Supervisors enact a % cent sales tax for general county purposes, with the
following mandatory restrictions?
o The sales tax must expire after nine years
o A Citizens Watchdog Committee, selected independently with direction from the County
Grand Jury and the League of Women Voters, will conduct yearly audits of all sales tax
expenditures.
a These yearly sales tax expenditure audits must be reported to the public and published in
local newspapers.
1996 Measure B followed Measure A on the ballot. Measure A read as follows:
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY. THIS MEASURE DOES NOT INCREASE TAXES. Shall any new voter-
approved sales tax fund these transportation improvements?
o fix streets, potholes;
o link to BART
o synchronize all expressway [traffic signals];
o build Tasman, Capitol, Vasona Light Rail;
o widen Highways 880, 101, 87, 17;
o increase Caltrain service;
o upgrade 237 /880, 85/101, 85/87 interchanges;
o improve safety: Pacheco Pass, Highway 85;
o expand bicycle routes;
o improve senior, disabled transit service.
Projects shall be implemented within nine years and administrative expenses limited to Yi of 1 %
maximum.
1984 Measure A
TRANSPORTATION-SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUTER RELIEF ACT. To create the Santa
Clara County Traffic Authority, to improve, expand and construct the highway transportation
system in the County, to authorize the authority to impose a one-half of 1 percent transactions and
use tax (for a period not to exceed 10 years) solely for highway transportation purposes and to
issue bonds payable from the proceeds of that tax, and to establish the appropriation limit (annual)
of the authority in the amount of 306.39 million dollars {$306,390,000).
1961 Measure A
MEASURE (A): (County Highways and Expressways) Shall the County of Santa Clara incur a
bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $70,000,000 for the object and purpose of
acquiring, constructing, and completing the following county improvement, to wit: County highways
and expressways, including new county highways and expressways; improvement, replacement,
relocation, realignment or reconstruction of existing county highways and of city streets to be
established as county highways; interchanges, grade separations, and highway bridges and sites
and approaches therefor; highway and expressway access and frontage roads and facilities;
grading, paving, surfacing, fencing, curbs, drains and culverts; lands, easements and rights of way;
and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for said county improvement?
SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION MEASURES
VOTING RESULTS BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
local Initiatives District 1
Voting Results Yes No
# #
Year Source Name % %
1961 bonds on Meas. A results property tax
1976 1/2-cent Transit 16,360 13,414
sales tax (perm} 55 45
1984 1/2-cent Meas A 57.,912· 44,683
sales tax (10-yr) 56 44
1996 1/2-cent Meas B 53,028 50:914
sales tax {9-yr) 51.f 49
2.000 1/2-cent Meas A 78,187 37,005
sales tax {30-yr} 68f 32•
2.008 1/8-cent Meas B 89.525 .51,.698.
sales tax (30-yr) 63 .. 37
Transportation Measures: 1961 -2008
Baliot Measure Text
Page3 of3
District 2
Yes No
# #
% %
not
7,726 5,676
58 42
46,083 33.707
58 42
' 3(.t503 26,593
53 47
47,389 18,673
... .72 28
. 60;7'.lO 22.734 : .. ··.···· 13 . 27 · ...
District 3 I District 4 District 5
Yes No Yes No Yes No
"'" +f # # # # l+ #
% % % I % %
I
availab1e by I district
10,414 8,870 12.272 10.152 19,l21 14,752
54 46 55 45 57 43
. 47,638 35,082 55.937 46,464 73,752 59,090
58 42 55 45 56 44
45.295 43,251 49,592 47,114 62.192 55,807
51 49 51 49. 53 47
71,242 27,086 71,850 29.521 89~198 36,608
72 28 11 r 29 71J 29
77,089 33,195 86,806 .43,371 100,198 55,105
70 30 67 .33 .· 65 35
I Countywide
Yes No
# ,.
l+
% %
47,985 21,762
69 31
67,596 54,453
55 45
281,322 na rm::;
56 44
240,610 223,679
52 48
357,866 "IJIQ 00::::>
71 29)
414,328 • 206,103
67 33
I
)>
& 0 =r
3
(!)
:::::5 .-+
· 198~l\MeasureAi/2ccentSa~es Tax (10yrs.)
Pr;()j~ct ... 2 3 4
101 Widening $ 84,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 15,000,000
SR237 Improvements $ -$ -$ 236,000,000 $ 21,400,000
SR85 Construction $ 373,000,000 $ -$ -$ 124,000,000
TOTAL EXPENDffURES $ 457,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 273,000,000 $ 160,400,000
Percentage of total by S. D. 38.1% 3.1% 22.8% 13.4%
NOTES:
1} Expenditures were apportioned by Supervisoriai District based on the project's ml!eage of roadway within each district.
2} Project-level data is not available; costs per mile were thus assumed to be uniform among the three projects.
5
$ 37,000,000
$ 42,600,000
$ 193,000,000
$ 272,600,000
22.7%
Project Total
$ 210,000,000
$ 300,000,000
$ 690,000,000
$ 1,200,000,000
100.0%
~ 0 ':::::J
3 (!)
::J .-
m
1$96 Measure B 1/2"'.cent Tr~~spo~ation Improvement Program (9 yrs. effective l; 1997)
Project 1 2 3 4 5
Tasman East LRT $ -$ -$ 139,970,343 $ -$ -
Capitol LRT $ -$ 22,328,747 $ 89,314,990 $ -$ -
Vasona lRT $ -$ 28,610,186 $ -$ 191,468,169 $ -
low Floor lRT Vehicles $ 57,669,339 $ 92,270,942 $ 89,387,475 $ 31,718,136 $ 17,300,802
Caltrain Service Improvements $ 7,263,229 $ 4,842,153 $ 16,947,535 $ 7,263,229 $ 7,763,229
Fremont/South Bay Connector $ -$ -$ 3,229,361 $ -$ -
Route 880 Widening $ -$ -$ 61,168,997 $ -$ -
Route 85/87 Interchange $ 39,850,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -
Route 101 Widening $ 50,395,519 $ -$ -$ -$ -
Route 85/101 Interchange {North} $ $ $ $ / $ 98,055,000 ----
Route 237 /880 Interchange $ -$ -$ 49,537,061 $ -$ -
Route 87 HOV lanes {North) $ $ 6,283,429 A 4,712,571 $ $ -~ --
Route 17 lmprovements $ -$ -$ -$ 26,536,000 $ -
Route 85/101 interchange (South) $ 43,039,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -
Route 87 HOV lanes {South} $ 1,803,571 $ 10,821,429 "' $ $ :;; ---
Route 152 Improvements $ 20,631,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -
Route 85 Noise Mitigation $ 1,065,260 $ -$ -$ 3,195,780 $ 3,347,960
Pavement Management Program {PMP) $ 20,400,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 14,200,000 ! s 23,300,000 $ 19,600,000
Bicycle/Mitigation/CODE/Misc. $ 5,907,600 $ 5,907,600 $ 5,907,600 $ 5,907,600 $ 5,907,600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 248,024,518 $ 183,564,485 $ 474,375,933 $ 289,388,914 $ 151,974,591
Percentage of total by S. D. 18.4% 13.6% 35.2% 21.5% 11.3%
NOTES:
1} For road and Hght rail projects, expenditures were apportioned by Supervisorial District based on the project's mileage of roadway or
trackage within each district.
2} For Low Floor LRTVehides, expenditures were apportioned based on the system-wide ml!eage of lRT trackage within each supv. district.
3) On!y the Measure expenditures are shown. Some projects were funded in part with non-Measure funds and thus their total cost
is higher than the amount shown.
Total
$ 139,970,343
$ 111,643,737
$ 220,078,355
$ 288,346,693
$ 44,079,375
$ 3,229,361
$ 61,168,997
$ 39,850,000
$ 50,395,519
$ 98,055,000
$ 49,537,061
$ 10,996,000
$ 26,536,000
$ 43,039,000
$ 12,625,000
$ 20,631,000
$ 7,609,000
$ 90,000,000
$ 29,538,000
$ 1,347,328,441
100.0%
~
('} ::::s
3
(I) :::::; -,,
·······.·.2~~0·;Me~sqr:~·j,\\i~2-~1:nt.~r-ansitl~p~ov~ment·Program.·(30vrs~·effectiveAprH.i,.·2006) ·
B,t\RT·~nd:SUpportlng·eroJects 1 2 3 4 5 Total
BART SV Program Dev./!mplementation I $ -I $ 53,600, 2,680,000 I $ $ 134,000,000
BARTSV Corridor Est. & Maint. {CEM) I $ -$ 123,960,000 I $ 179,742,000 l $ 6,198,000 ! $ $ 309,900,000
Berryessa Extension Project {SVBX) I $ -$ -! $ 1,135,300,000 ! $ -I $ -I $ 1,135,300,000
Future Extension to Santa Clara (SVSX) I $ -I $ 1,413,581,000 I $ -I $ 43,719,000 I $ -I $ 1,457,300,000
Newhall Maintenance Facility ! $ -I $ -i $ -I $ 500,000 I $ -I $ 500,000
BART Core System Modifications (BCS) $ 79,760,000 $ 115,652,000 I $ 3,988,000 I $ -I $ 199,400,000
Warm Springs Extension (VTA Share) I $ -I $ -l $ 8,000,000 I $ -l $ -I $ 8,000,000
King Road BRT $ -$ 168,421 $ 31,579 $ -$ -$ 200,000
Mountain View Double Track $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 63,000,000 $ 63,000,000
!Santa Clara Pocket Track $ -$ - $ -$ 24,800,000 $ -$ 24,800,000 ,
:BART Transit Integration Anaiysis $ -$ 80,000 $ 116,000 $ 4,000 $ -$ 200,000 1
SUBTOTAL BART {incl. supporting projs.) $ -$ 1,671,149,421 $ 1,516,561,579 $ 81,889,000 $ 63,000,000 $ 3,332,600,000
NOTES:
1} For BART and supporting light rail projects, expenditures were apportioned Supervisorla! District based on the project's mileage of
trackage within each district.
2) For general project costs such as BART Program Development and Implementation, costs were apportioned by Supervisoria! District based
on the mileage of BART trackage within the County at final build-out (i.e. a!! the way to Santa Clara}.
3} Figures were obtained from the Oct. 2014 VTA document entitled "2000 Measure A Tr?nslt improvement Program" from the column
labeled "Estimated Cost -Measure A Portion". Where costs are shown "TB Du, staff used the figure from the column labeled "Incurred Cost -
Measure A Portion". As costs continue to be incurred, these figures will increase.
~ ~ 0 :::i"
3
(!)
:l ~
G)
200.0 Measure A 1/2-centl'.ransitf mprovemenf Program (30 yrs. effective April 1, 2006)(continued)
· Other Projects 1 2 3 4 5 Total
SJC Airport People Mover {APM) $ -$ -$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ -$ 200,000
Capito! Expwy. LR Ext. (CELR} to Eastridge $ -$ 56,300,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 56,300,000
CELR Phase I -Pedestrian Improvements $ -$ 3,000,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000
CELR Phase l -Eastridge Transit Center $ -$ 41,300,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 41,300,000
CELR Phase !! -LRT to Eastridge $ -$ -$ -$ -IS -$ -
70 Low-Floor Light Rail Vehicles $200,600,000 included in Debt Service line item below $ -
Caltrain South County Capacity !mpr. $ 2,300,000 ! $ -!S -$ -$ -$ 2,300,000
Caltrain Electrification (VTA Share} $ 30,037,000 $ 9,195,000 $ 5,517,000 $ 4,291,000 $ 12,260,000 $ 61,300,000
Caltrain !mpr. Plan/Service Upgrades $ 8,085,000 $ 2,475,000 $ 1,485,000 $ 1,155,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 16,500,000
Caltrain Mountain View Parking Structure $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000 $ 200,000
Blossom HiH Pedestrian Grade Separation $ 1,600,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,600,000
Caltrain Safety Enhancements $ 13,132,000 $ 4,020,000 $ 2,412,000 $ 1,876,000 $ 5,360,000 $ 26,800,000
Santa Clara Station Ped Underpass Ext. $ -$ -$ -$ 700,000 $ -$ 700,000
Santa Clara/Diridon Station Upgrade $ -$ 6,100,000 $ -$ 6,100,000 $ -$ 12,200,000
Bike Sharing Pilot Project $ 147,000 $ 45,000 $ 27,000 $ 21,000 $ 60,000 s 300,000
Palo Alto lntermoda! 1 ran sit Center $ -$ -!$ -$ -s -$ -
BRT Strategic Plan $ 300,000 $ 300,000 s 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000
Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT $ -!S 25,000,000 s -$ -s -$ 25,000,000
Stevens Creek BRT $ -!S -s -$ 1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 2,100,000
El Camino Rea! BRT $ -!$ -$ 2,050,000 $ 2,050,000 $ 4,100,000 $ 8,200,000
Procure BRT Articulated Buses $ 4,240,000 $ 4,240,000 $ . 4,240,000 $ 4,240,000 $ 4,240,000 $ 21,200,000
Mod. Chaboya/North Div. for BRT Buses $ 760,000 $ 760,000 $ 760,000 $ 160,000 Is 760,000 $ 3,800,000
Money Counting Facility Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 100,000 I
Hwy. 17 Bus Service improvements $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 2,500,000
Dumbarton Rail Corridor $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000
3 Zero-Emission Buses {Pilot Program) $ 640,000 $ 540,000 $ 640,000 $ 640,000 $ 640,000 $ 3,200,000
Zero-Emission Buses Facility !mpr. $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 480,000 $ 2,400,000
New Rail Corridors Study $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 700,000
light Rail Systems Analysis $ 340,000 I$ 544,000 $ 527,000 $ 187,000 $ 102,000 $ 1,700,000
Southern light Rail Express $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ -$ 400,000 $ -$ 1,200,000
LRT Extension to Vasona Junction $ 45,000 $ -$ -$ 855,000 $ -$ 900,000
Operating/Maint Bus, Rail, Paratransit $ 48,720,000 $ 48,720,000 $ 48,720,000 $ 48,720,000 $ 48,720,000 $ 243,600,000
Debt Service $ 60,160,000 $ 60,160,000 $ 60,160,000 $ 60,160,000 $ 60,160,000 $ 300,800,000
Fund Exchange Payments $ 17,520,000 $ 17,520,000 $ 17,520,000 $ 17,520,000 $ 17,520,000 $ 87,600,000
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses $ 1,200,000 s 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 6,000,000
SUBTOTAL OTHER $ 191,516,000 s 282,559,000 $ 146,298,000 $ 154,215,000 $ 162,912,000 s 937,500,000 -;.)\i;;i.::)''··;· •. ••····· ··· :·nnl:ifi ··ii•::, .. :.••;;;,\ <$ . 1;662;859;57~ 1•::r,;:, ···';;;~\·;:.·':'~·~k \~. ·..• ·' ' '~;~~ .. <:: • 4 270 100 0.00 ,., ....•...
'.<:;.:.1·••;/{0;'(·, •• •··•5 ••;•fo11,;·;,;...T•·•.;;1!, '11'·;·1!;\•.,; ; t.'~. "'\;'!'.'~f : :::\·;?·>' ···•.· .... .. .. : .< ··.····>•<.,~a~9~ ;· ·,I· . '. J .
..... .. .q::y;;; \f~'.1'lS11\is\~'''! .'.\t•. :';\''/•\'.':':#K1,.:\'.: •'\•l?Y'J .• ~,~: .. ~ .•. .;;;; ,:';,~.;oz!" . . >. ':.· .... , -.-.... ;:· ... · .. ·... .• ·• 100;0,%
NOTES:
1) For LRT and BRT projects, expenditures were apportioned by Supervisorial District based on the project's mileage of trackage or roadway
within each district.
2) For system-wide LRT and Caltrain improvement projects, costs were apportioned by Supervisorial District based on the mileage of the
respective system's total trackage within each district.
3) Figures were obtained from the Oct. 2014 VTA document entitled "2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program" from the column
labeled "Estimated Cost -Measure A Portion". Where costs are shown "TBD", staff used the figure from the column labeled "Incurred Cost -
Measure A Portion". As costs continue to be incurred, these figures will increase.
Pr'Qject
2 BART SV Program Development and Implementation I
3 BART SV Corridor Establishment and Malntehance (GEM) J $309.9 $274.8
4 • Newhall Yard Property
5 " .Mitchell Block Parcel
6 • l<ato Road Grade Separation
7 • f0ission/Wturen/Frelght Railroad Relocation (MWT)
B • Lower Berryessa Creek Project (LBC)
9 • Montague Reconstruction Project (MAP)
10 • Upper Penitencia Creel\ Trail Connector (UPC)
11 BART Silicon Valley Extension
12 • Berryessa Extension Project (SVBX) $2,421.~i $1,135.3 I $799.6 $229.2
13 • Future E'.xlenslon to Santa Clara (SVSX) 3 $4,304.4 $1,457.:;J I $138.0 $2.1
14 • Newhall Maintenance Facility $388.3 $0.5 I $25.9 $0.5
15 • BART Core System Modilicalions (BCS) $269.2 $199.4 I $99.0 $42.6
16 Warm Springs Extension (WSX) (VTA Share) $8.0 $8.0 I $8.0 $8.0
17 Other Supporting Projects
18 • Berryessa BART Connector Design (l<ino Roacl BRT) TBD TBD l $0.2 $0.2
19 " Northern Light Rall Express (Mtn. View Double Track) $63.0 $63.0 ! $7.7 $7.7 !
20 • Santa Clara Pocket Track l
21 l
22
23
24
25 CapltolExpresswf!yLJ:l E>:~eilsk>n(CEL:R) to Eastridge
26 CE~R Phase f LPedeslrian ·Improvements $19.0 $3.0 $19.0
27 CELR Phase I .,.. E;astridge Transit Center $41.3 $26.7
28 GELR PhaS!f 11--LRTio Eastrigge
29
30
31
32 Callrairi South County Capacity Improvements
33 Caltraln Electrll!calion (VTA Share) $61.3 $61.3 $4.0
5 Cons/ruclfon Plwse Cost Estimate. 1 Current estimate as of October 2014.
2 Incurred costs !/!rough June 30, 2014.
3 Estimated Cost includes a 4-slation,
6-mile project.
G Project funded through a Board approved fund exchange between
Santa Clara Cou11/y, VT A anti Measure A Measure A costs incurred
for this itmn reflecled as a portion of Debt Service (see page 2).
4 Completed studies of Automated Transit
Guideway system.
7 Completed fiber optic cable relocation of tile northern segme/l/
(5.3 miles).
Attachment H
OCTOBER 2014 -REV
Status
!ongoing
I l I Acquired
I Acquired
I Completed
j Under Construction
I Completed
j Design/ROW
I Design
I Under Construction I Under Development
Under Development
!ongoing I Under Construction
I Under Development
joesign I Under Construction
Un(j~rJJ~veJopment
Completed Design
I completed
I Un(jer Construction
linac!iYes
continued on bacl<
34
35 Caltrain lmpr~vement Pl!intCallrain Service Upgrades
36 Caltraln Mountain View Parking Structure
37 Blossom Mill P.eclestrian Grade .Sep11ration
38 canrain sa!01y gnhancements
39 Santa Clara Stallon pedestrian Underpass Extension
40 Santa Clara and Satt Jose Diridoh Stallon Upgrade
41 Bike §Jiarihg Pilot Project
42
43
44
45
46 Santa Clara-Alum Bock Bus Rapid Transit
47 Stevens Crer:lle Bus Rapid Transit
48 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit
49 Procure BRTArtk:ul<1ted Buses
Modifications of Chaboya and North Division for BAT Buses l
I
67 Other Expenditures
66 Debt Servfoa Qncluding principal, Interest, & other bone! costs) I
69 Fund Exchange Paymf:lnts12 I
70 Miscell<ineous Operating Expenses I
71 TOTAL
TBD
$11.6
$26.9
$115.0
$145.0
$250.0
$40.4
$3.B
$1.2
$17.6.0
TBD
I
I
l
TBO
$1,6
$,26.8
$0.7
$25.0
TBO
TBD
$21.2
$3.8
$1,2
TBD
TBD
O Completed conceptual clesign.
9 Completed project studies.
1 O Included in Santa Clara and San Jose
Diridon Station Upgrade.
12 Payments related to exchange of Stale
Transportation Improvement Program (STf P) and
Measure A funding approved by the Board in
June 2007, December 2007, and November 2013
11 Completed preliminary design, ridership
sluclies and conceplual estimates. -2-·
$0,3
$10.7
$15.6
$2.0
$34.5
$2.1
$8.2
$1.5
$0.2
$243.6
$300.8
$87.6
$6,0
$2,839.6
$0,2 jtmicliven
$1.2 I Completed
$15.5 I Completed Design
:ji0.7 I Completed Design
I Completed
!completed
$10.7 ! Under Construclion
$2.1 I Planning·
$8.2 I Environmental
$1.5 ! . ! Procurement
$0.2 loosign
I $ludy Completed
Completed
$0.9 ·. IEmiironmental
$243.6 t ongoing
$300.8
$87.6
$6.0
$1,512.2
!ongoing
J Ongoing
Ongoing
Measute A Collected To Dato
(as or 6130/14) ...: $1.3B
Forecast Addlllonal Through 2036 "" $6.1 B
1984 :-.2JJ08J .. Qc~I Tr~l')sportation .funding Measure$
. stu11B'l1arv of Revenue ~nd Expem:Utures by Supv. District
:;\··:, rlj'.~~~~~~)t~•c ·''''' cc .··· ,.,,..,.·=-~' ·.'(\i.:.,:.,.( +:>:: .• ·:.:..:sx:: .. :.····• :2 .. ·:·t:
"# ·"" '"'·' '-·" ·"~:"':/I»<
1 $ 457.0 $ 248.0 $ 191.5 $ -$ 896.5 12.6% $ 896.5 25.7%
2 $ 37.0 $ 183.6 $1,953.7 $ 128.3 $ 2,302.6 32.3% $ 503.1 14.4%
3 $ 273.0 $ 474.4 $1,662.9 $ 186.1 $ 2,596.3 36.4% $ 893.7 25.6%
4 $ 160.4 $ 289.4 $ 236.1 $ 6.4 $ 692.3 9.7% $ 604.0 17.3%
5 $ 272.6 f $. 152.0 $ 225.9 $ -$ 650.5 9.1% $ 587.5 16.9%
TOTAl.S $ 1,200.0 l $ 1,347.3 $4,270.1 $ 320.8 $ 7,138.2 100.0% $ 3,484.8 100.0%1
NOTES:
1) Figures are unadjusted for inflation.
2} Collection of the 1/8-cent sales tax authorized the 2008 Measure B for future operation and maintenance of BART within
Santa Clara County did not begin until July 1, 2012. The $320.8 miilion shown is the estimated amount collected between
July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2015. This amount was apportioned by Supervlsoriai District based on the mileage of BART trackage
within the County at final build-out (i.e. a!! the way to Santa Ciara).
15.01%
18.42%
21.75%
28.46%
16.35%
100.0%
~ ~ 0 =:;-
3 m
::J -
S.D.
District 1
District 2
District3
District4
District 5
Total
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION Of 1% BRADLEY BURNS SALES TAX BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2005 -2014
2014(as '9/30} 2013 2012 2011 2010
$102,258,355 14.72% $138,142,955 14.74% $133,066,645 14.35% $128,279,280 14.64% $119,975,026
$128,995,862 18.57% $171,688,280 18.32% $165,956,948 17.90% $161,510,255 18.44% $150,403,139
$151,901,956 21.87% $201,588,401 21.51% $202,416,516 21.84% $193,602,251 22.10% $180,897,317
$194,423,530 27.99% $266,092,185 28.40% $259,865,968 28.03% $244,654,804 27.93% $219,106,005
$117,114,070 16.85% $159,532,368 17.03% $165,675,905 17.87% $148,022,259 16.90% $138,336,413
$694,693,774 100.00% $937,044,189 100.00% $926,981,982 100.00% $876,058,849 100.00% $808,717,901
NOTES:
1. The above data was provided by HdL Companies. According to Hdl, each year between 15.6% and 17% of the local sales tax
is a!!ocated the state with no situs address identified. Hdl apportioned these tax proceeds by Supervisorial District in the
same proportion as the "with address" allocations. For example, in Sunnyvale, the "no-address" tax proceeds were apportioned
between District 3 and District 5 in the same proportions as the "with address" tax proceeds.
2. The above table demonstrates that the percentage of overall tax proceeds generated by each Supervise rial District varies
little from year to year. The 10-year average for each district was thus assumed to represent the source of the sales tax
proceeds for the 1984, 1996, 2000 and 2008 ioca! sales tax measures.
2009
14.84% $115,668,072 15.31%
18.50% $142,709,190 18.89%
22.37% $162,283,478 21.48%
27.09% $209,476,315 27.73%
17.11% $125,254,657 16.58%
100.00% $755,391,711 100.00%
(continued on next page)
& 0
::F'
3
(!)
::::J -'=-
•
s.o. 2008 2007 2006 2005 10-YEAR TOTALS
District 1 $129,197,536 14.61% $137,387,604 15.30% $135,951,272 15.71% $128,697 ,307 16.01% $1,268,624,051 15.01%
District 2 $164,875,827 18.65% $164,150,137 18.28% $157,644,437 18.22% $148,470,094 18.47% $1,556,404,169 18.42%
District 3 $196,335,927 22.20% $193,422,864 21.54% . $183,516,970 21.21% $172,315,491 21.44% $1,838,281,172 21.75%
District4 $254,103,432 28.74% $258,839,475 28.82% $258,045,758 29.83% $240,495,458 29.92% $2,405,102,929 28.46%
Districts $139,713,572 15.80% $144,378,455 16.07% $130,009,880 15.03% $113,714,676 14.15% $1,381,752,256 16.35%
Total $884,226,293 100.00% $898,178,536 100.00% $865,168,317 100.00% $803,693,026 100.00% $8,450,164,576 100.00%
"' c
450
400
350
300
~ 250
~
.. 5
-ti).
200
150
100
50
0
VLF
Ridership
1\1 Vehides per day
{epwy
Transit
" Road
• Expressways
1960 1962 196419661958 1970 19721974 1976 19781980198219841986198819901992 199419961998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
)> g
0 =s
3
(I)
::::J ~
~