Good news for the chances for Caltrain improvements getting funding from Santa Clara County’s transportation ballot measure.
Caltrain capacity improvements (longer platforms for longer trains), and grade separation investments to improve safety and frequency – were requested by Palo Alto, Mountain View – the cities with the second and third highest ridership on the corridor after San Francisco, in addition to VTA proposing the improvements forwarded on from Caltrain.
The Caltrain capacity improvements were also requested by Cupertino and Saratoga, as part of a broad North/West Santa Clara County alliance supporting study and investments in transit network improvements. Â Â Â The broad and consistent support improves the likelihood that the request for Caltrain funding will survive political horse-trading to pick the projects that will ultimately go on the ballot.
A group of cities, lead by Cupertino, and including Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Mountain View, and Palo Alto, all supported a comprehensive study for transit network investments focusing on Highway 85/U.S. Route 101/State Route 237/Interstate 280 corridors, including connections to Caltrain and first/last mile investments. These areas are currently poorly served by transit. (The draft letter can be found here)
The requests from these cities were all over the place in terms of the amount of funding requested – some requested a few million for a study, while Cupertino requested over $800 million to implement as yet unspecified transit improvements. Â
Better commuter rail service to South County, East Bay, Central Valley Â
Meanwhile, the City of Gilroy put in a request for increased service frequency and double-tracking to Gilroy. Â Â And VTA submitted projects for increased ACE service frequency, a major overhaul of the Great America station, and diesel multiple unit service from Alviso to Blossom Hill (see this project description)
Bus, shuttle, and vehicle trip reduction programs
VTA proposed nearly $3 Billion for bus network improvements, including increased speed and frequency.   This is a big and welcome difference from the rapid planning for a proposed and never-implemented 2014 ballot measure, where there was $0 proposed for bus service improvements.  There is $60 million proposed for low-income fares, presumably for extensions of VTA’s programs for very low income residents.    In addition, several cities proposed improvements to local shuttles and first/last mile connections, providing transit connections to local destinations.
Hopefully, the Jarrett Walker-led project to analyze and improve Santa Clara County’s transit network – looking at bus and rail together, and looking as fare structure as part of creating an effective system, will result in investments that improve bus performance as a component of an integrated transit network.
VTA has also proposed a new program to reduce vehicle trips and improve transit mode share in dense and densifying areas. Â Â There is a trend for cities, including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose, to set up transportation management associations as public private partnerships. Â While small ($50 Million), this program could help jumpstart TMAs, and align VTA services with city land use, traffic and parking goals.
Winnowing down the $50 Billion list
Over $50 Billion in projects were submitted, including duplication. Â The de-duplicated total will still be ~$40 Billion, according to VTA staff.
The full list of projects will be winnowed down to craft the MTC’s regional list of projects eligible for federal, state, and regional funding,  as well as a shorter list that will be included in the ballot measure.   and the sales tax will bring in about $7 billion at the .5 cent level.    (In other words, some projects might not make it onto the ballot, but still be on a longer list to qualify for other funding)
Next steps include evaluating projects against a set of criteria set by the board, and another round of prioritization feedback.   So far, some cities have had public city council meetings to weigh in on the project submissions, and others haven’t.  The VTA board will be encouraging more cities to host public meetings.
Thanks to everyone who’s participated so far in providing input for the transit funding decisions.  if you care what projects will get taxpayer funding, there will be more opportunities to participate.
Here is the full list shown to VTA advisory committees - any more thoughts, for folk who
through it?
Caltrain and corridor cities request investments in VTA call for projects (and other transit… http://t.co/6UkKpdFYia http://t.co/E6Ia0i6gkL
How about taking the $5.031B Santa Cruz light rail (complete with base tunnel) off the list?
[…] Santa Clara County Cities Want Caltrain to Get Boost From Proposed Sales Tax Measure (GC) […]
We need more frequent Caltrain service before extend platform. So, investment should focus on increasing train frequency first. I would like to see half hourly local train 7 days a week, in addition to every 15~30 min express also 7 days a week.
A 1994 Study of Railroad Service between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz: http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Santa_Cruz-Los_Gatos_Rail_Corridor_study.pdf
@William. Thank you. This is VERY useful information.
The only realistic solution is a SMART/Sprinter solution for $1/2B with electrification as and when the ridership can justify it (minimum 6 trains/hour/direction).
VTA-sprinter: How about electrified with 750V and operate as VTA light rail? DMU option is easier to adopt by Union Pacific but cost more because of separate maintenance facility and different operation practice other than Caltrain, VTA, ACE… etc.
VTA have excess LRT vehicles and they are sleeping in the maintenance yard most of time. Gilroy – Blossom Hill – Diridon – Alviso LRT provides faster traveling option between south to north. In addition, it can replace Caltrain Diridon-Gilory. So, Caltrain can concentrate the resource between SJ-SF which will be profitable and high density of ridership.
While I support transit projects, I do not support SCC sales tax increasing above the current 8.75%, so I will vote “No” on any sales tax increase. However, I would support VLF surcharge and property tax increase to fund transit in SCC.
@Evans
The Blossom Hill to Alviso Sprinter route is a proof of concept which, if successful, could be extended to replace the existing VTA LRT in the 85 and 237 corridors.
The Sprinters will be bi-voltage (750V DC and 25KV AC) and bi-mode (BiBi in French) which means that they will be able to operate on light rail and heavy rail tracks (both electrified and non-electrified). Having said that, one of the many issues with light rail tracks is the tight turns downtown because modified Sprinter undercarriages would impact top speed (55 MPH for existing LRT, 75 MPH for Sprinters).
There is a possibility that Sprinters may have to provide a subway service between Diridon and Berryessa if BART is unable to operate out of Diridon without tail tracks. Sprinters will not be able to operate south of Blossom Hill until double-tracking.
Any additional service on the Alviso-Santa Clara-Blossom Hill line would require negotiation with UP, especially commuter services, as it doesn’t fall under Amtrak’s inter-city rights. This is why Capitol Corridor said it can only extend to Salinas once Oakland-San Jose second track is done.
Anyhow, Caltrain’s CalMod Phase 2 and BART to Diridon should be the priority of Santa Clara County, in addition to SCC’s share of Oakland-San Jose double track. There probably won’t be any money left for anything else.
1) Correct and this is why double-tracking between Santa Clara and Alviso is a top priority project (Oakland to Fremont is an Alameda County project).
2) With regards to the second point here is a likely scenario for how the $6B pie might get split:
– BART to San Jose 1/4 ($1.5B)
– Caltrain, ACE & CC ($1.5B). Caltrain gets 1/2, ACE & CC get the other 1/2
– Highway 85 corridor: $1.5B
– Everything else: $1.5B
BTW, how are we going to pay for all this good stuff if people like you don’t support the 1/2 cent sales tax increase???
Paging Clem:
1) Please read this: http://www.caltrain.com/Page4126.aspx.
2) Kindly help the rest of us understand which part of this blog post it is that you do not understand:
http://www.greencaltrain.com/2015/07/atherton-lawsuit-feds-rule-that-caltrain-electrification-falls-under-california-law/
@Roland, ask me again in 2036 when Measure A expires, then I’ll reconsider. I support VLF and property tax increases, is there any reason that raising sales tax is easier than raising VLF and property tax?