MEMORANDUM Writer s Direct Telephone: (408) 321-7005 TO: VTA Board of Directors THROUGH: Michael T. Burns General Manager FROM: Michael Hursh Chief Operating Officer DATE: October 7, 2013 SUBJECT: VTA, Inter-Agency Partners, and Contracted Services: Ridership for August 2013 August 2013 total monthly system ridership for bus and light rail was 3,644,760, a decrease of 0.4% over August 2013. The average weekday system ridership for August 2013 was up 1.3% from August 2012. August 2013 had one less weekday (22 days) than in August 2012 (23 days). Bus average weekday ridership for August 2013 was 100,800 an increase of 0.2% compared to August 2012. Light rail recorded an average weekday ridership of 35,203 for August 2013, an increase of 4.6% compared to August 2013. With the exception of the Capitol Corridor and Paratransit all VTA inter-agency partners and contracted services recorded ridership increases for August 2013. VTA Ridership August 2013 August 2012 Percent Change VTA System Boardings 3,644,760 3,659,997-0.4% System Average Weekday 136,003 134,295 1.3% Bus Boardings 2,688,857 2,727,882-1.4% Bus Average Weekday 100,800 100,646 0.2% Light Rail Boardings 955,903 932,115 2.6% Light Rail Average Weekday 35,203 33,649 4.6%
Inter-agency Partners Ridership August 2013 August 2012 Percent Change Dumbarton Express Boardings 30,552 26,483 15.4% Dumbarton Average Weekday 1,389 1,151 20.7% Highway 17 Express Boardings 30,708 28,910 6.2% Highway 17 Average Weekday 1,126 1,041 8.2% Monterey-San Jose Express Boardings 2,964 2,800 5.9% Monterey-San Jose Average Weekday 92 85 8.2% Caltrain Boardings 1,466,168 1,350,537 8.6% Caltrain Average Weekday 53,840 48,634 10.7% Altamont Commuter Express Boardings 90,871 75,671 20.1% ACE Average Weekday 4,131 3,290 25.6% Capitol Corridor Boardings 143,080 146,232-2.2% Contracted Services Ridership July 2013 July 2012 Percent Change Paratransit Boardings 61,940 64,314-3.7% Paratransit Average Weekday 2,553 2,567-0.5% ACE Shuttles Boardings 31,116 26,068 19.4% ACE Shuttles Average Weekday 1,414 1,133 24.8%
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority DATE: October 11, 2013 SUBJECT: Weekly Legislative Summary: Week of October 7, 2013 FEDERAL Federal Government Shutdown: As the federal government shutdown entered its 12 th day, Congress and the White House drew no closer to breaking the impasse. However, two things have become apparent. First, the shutdown fight is rapidly turning into a two-pronged fiscal confrontation that also involves avoiding a potential federal government default on the nation s $16.7 trillion debt. According to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, the government will run out of borrowing authority on October 17 and will not have enough money to pay all of its financial obligations unless lawmakers vote to raise the debt limit. Second, what began as a GOP assault to defund or dismantle the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has moved beyond the President s signature health care law to encompass fiscal, tax and entitlement program reforms. While both sides have publicly expressed a willingness to negotiate, they are divided on the timing of such talks. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) indicated that if House Republicans are able to extract the framework for a broad, long-term budget deal first, he would then move to end the federal government shutdown and raise the debt limit in one legislative vehicle, sparing his caucus multiple politically tough votes. President Barack Obama and majority Democrats in the Senate, on the other hand, are holding firm that they will negotiate, but only after GOP lawmakers pass a clean, short-term, stopgap continuing resolution with no strings attached to reopen the federal government and increase the debt limit. The two sides strategies both rest on the belief that the other party will blink first. While the situation remains incredibly fluid, it still is unclear how a resolution would be reached. Here is a summary of some of the maneuvering that took place this past week: House Republicans continued to pursue a piecemeal strategy of moving forward with targeted continuing resolutions aimed at reopening certain federal agencies, an approach that has been rejected by Senate Democrats and President Obama. A week ago, the House passed individual continuing resolutions for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Park Service. This week, they focused on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), federal health research funding,
and intelligence programs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) reiterated that he has no plans to take up any of these resolutions. House Republicans proposed legislation to create a bipartisan, bicameral committee of Congress to negotiate over the shutdown and debt limit. The proposed committee would function in a manner similar to the 2011 Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, whose failure to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures triggered the implementation of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts through a process known as sequestration. The sequestration cuts will stay in place unless Congress can reach an agreement on a way to turn them off. President Obama challenged Boehner to prove that the votes do not exist in the House to pass a clean continuing resolution. The President s statement was in response to Boehner s assertion that there is not a bipartisan majority in the House to pass such a resolution. While as many as 22 House Republicans have publicly voiced a willingness to support a clean continuing resolution, Boehner and other GOP leaders contend that it would be opposed by liberal Democrats who are against the sequestration spending levels and by conservative Democrats who want to delay the Affordable Care Act s individual mandate. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), however, announced that Democrats would deliver all of their 200 votes for a clean continuing resolution, suggesting that it could garner the 218 votes needed for approval if Boehner would bring it to the floor. Boehner refused to do so, prompting House Democrats to take matters into their own hands by circulating a discharge petition to force a vote. They need to gather 218 signatures for the petition to succeed, an unlikely prospect given that House GOP lawmakers, regardless of how they may feel about a clean continuing resolution, are not about to do an end run on Boehner. Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would raise the debt limit until December 31, 2014, with no budgetary preconditions, believing there are at least six GOP senators who would vote for a procedural motion to advance such a bill to the floor for consideration. They responded with unease to President Obama s comments that he would be willing to accept a debt limit increase of a few weeks while Congress looked for a way to reach a broader budget agreement. Late in the week, Boehner offered a six-week debt limit increase that would carry the federal government to November 22, in exchange for President Obama agreeing to negotiate over the continuing resolution and longer-term budget issues. This proposal would effectively decouple the debt limit from the continuing resolution, providing no relief from the government shutdown. The President did not accept this proposal. Instead, he made it clear to GOP lawmakers that he also wanted a plan to end the shutdown. Some Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan offered by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that calls for raising the debt limit for two months, enacting a six-month continuing resolution and repealing the Affordable Care Act s medical device tax. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Lew said the Treasury expects its cash-on-hand to fall to $30 billion on October 17, while the federal government typically spends $60 billion every day. Lew commented that without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government would only have enough money to pay its bills as it has revenues on any given day, and could be 2
pushed into default as early as October 22. He dismissed arguments from some Republican lawmakers that the Treasury could simply prioritize obligations, making interest payments on the debt first so that the nation would not go into default. Lew explained that a debt limit breach would cause the federal government s interest costs to triple because existing investors would take their money out of Treasury securities, while new investors would demand higher interest rates. He also pointed out that the Treasury s payment systems are not designed to pick and choose which of the 80 million checks issued by the department each month would not get paid. Lew further noted that there is no law to guide which obligations should take precedence. I don t know how you could possible choose between Social Security and veterans benefits, between Medicare and food assistance, Lew told committee members. These are obligations we ve made. As the impasse drags on, political analysts believe President Obama will have to weigh carefully just how hard he wants to push Boehner, who is under intense pressure from the more conservative members of his caucus to not capitulate. Some suggest that it would be in the interest of the White House to find a way for Boehner to emerge out of the stalemate with some credibility with his rankand-file members, as the alternative to the Ohio lawmaker who might emerge from a House Republican leadership fight may be far less tolerable. STATE Design-Build Contracting: Gov. Brown signed AB 401 (Daly) to allow for the continued use of design-build contracting for state highway projects beyond the current January 1, 2014, sunset date. Specifically, this measure authorizes local agencies, including VTA, to use design-build contracting for an unlimited number of state highway projects for a 10-year period ending on January 1, 2024. AB 401 also requires Caltrans to manage construction inspection services for such projects, a provision that generated much controversy as the bill made its way through legislative process. This language was sufficient to draw the support of the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), a labor organization representing Caltrans engineers that historically has opposed the use of design-build contracting for state highway projects. However, it caused the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) to come out in opposition to the bill. In fact, during the legislative debate, ACEC threatened to file a lawsuit if AB 401 were enacted, contending that the language dealing with construction inspection services is unconstitutional because of Proposition 35. This constitutional amendment, which was approved by the voters in 2000, states that local agencies have the ability to contract with qualified private entities for engineering and architectural services, including construction inspection, for all of their public works projects. Benefit Assessment Districts: Gov. Brown signed SB 142, which allows any public transit agency in California to create benefit assessment districts involving property within a half mile of an existing or proposed rail station, bus transfer station or ferry terminal. The proceeds generated from the benefit assessment could only be used to build, maintain, operate, and improve that facility. Under the provisions of SB 142, a public transit agency, in establishing a benefit assessment district, must comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 and its implementing statutes, including gaining the approval of a majority of the affected property owners. Benefit assessment districts have been used by local jurisdictions for quite some time. They are based on the premise that property owners within close proximity of a particular public asset in this case, a 3
rail station, bus transfer station or ferry terminal derive benefits from the presence of that asset and, therefore, should share in the costs of building, maintaining, operating, and upgrading that asset. VTA already has benefit assessment district authority through the enactment of AB 935 (Diaz) in 2003, as does the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). SB 142, which is modeled after VTA s enabling statutes, allows other public transit agencies in California to take advantage of this tool. Privacy: To address privacy concerns, Gov. Brown signed AB 179 (Bocanegra), which calls for applying the restrictions regarding the retention and sharing of personal account information that exist for electronic toll collection systems to electronic transit fare collection systems, such as Clipper in the Bay Area. Specifically, AB 179 prohibits a transportation agency from selling or disseminating personal data collected through an electronic transit fare collection system, limits how long such data can be retained, requires conspicuous and meaningful notice to subscribers of an electronic fare collection system of the transportation agency s privacy policy, and provides civil remedies for violations of the bill s provisions. In the Bay Area, the requirements of AB 179 would apply to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which administers the Clipper card. High-Speed Rail: Three high-speed rail bills were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Brown. AB 481 and AB 528 were both authored by Assembly Transportation Committee Chairperson Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). The former addresses a host of property acquisition issues pertaining to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The latter requires the High-Speed Rail Authority s Business Plan to include: (1) a review of the funding sources that the authority intends to access for the construction and operation of the state s proposed high-speed train system; and (2) a discussion of all reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the project. The third bill, SB 557 (Hill), requires any track expansion in the Peninsula Corridor beyond the two-track blended system approach identified in the High-Speed Rail Authority s April 2012 Business Plan to be approved by all nine signatories to the Bay Area High-Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy Memorandum of Understanding, including VTA and the city of San Jose. Driver s Licenses: Marking a shift in public opinion and his own view, Gov. Brown signed AB 60 (Alejo), which grants driver s licenses to undocumented immigrants. This action was the latest in a series of victories for immigrant advocates. Previously, the Governor signed bills allowing undocumented immigrant college students to receive public financial aid; establishing fines for employers who retaliate against an employee because of citizenship or immigration status; prohibiting local law enforcement from detaining someone who is under a hold request from federal immigration officials unless that detainee is suspected or convicted of a major crime; and allowing undocumented immigrants to be licensed as attorneys. For more than a decade, legislation to make driver s licenses available to undocumented immigrants hung out of reach. In 2003, polls showed that 70 percent of Californians opposed such a measure. While in office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed several versions of such a bill. For his part, Gov. Brown called for comprehensive immigration reform during his 2010 campaign, but spoke against driver s license legislation, characterizing it as a piecemeal solution that sends the wrong signal. With the recent focus on immigration policy in Washington, DC, the issue came to a head in 4
Sacramento. Last month, Gov. Brown said he had changed his mind about undocumented immigrant driver s licenses because of foot-dragging on the part of Congress and not creating immigration reform. The evolution of his position also corresponded with a change in public opinion. It was only this year that a driver s license bill drew majority support for the first time among California s registered voters. AB 60 reverses a 20-year-old policy in California, restoring the ability of undocumented immigrants to drive legally in the state after Republican Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation outlawing the practice in 1993. Under the provisions of AB 60, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is required to issue driver s licenses to undocumented immigrants by January 1, 2015. The license must include a mark distinguishing it from a regular license, such as the letters DP for driving privilege, instead of DL for driver s license. The license also is required to include a notice that it is for driving purposes only, and does not establish eligibility to vote, to obtain employment or to apply for public benefits. NOTE: Also contributing to this report were Steve Palmer with Van Scoyoc Associates; Delaney Hunter with Gonzalez, Quintana & Hunter LLC; Scott Haywood, VTA Policy and Community Relations Manager; and Colleen Valles, VTA Senior Policy Analyst. 5