VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members:

From: Board.Secretary Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:18 PM To: VTA Board of Directors; VTA Advisory Committee Members Subject: January is Human Trafficking Prevention Month VTA Board of Directors and VTA Advisory Committee Members: January is Human Trafficking Prevention Month. VTA wants to share with you what to look out for and steps to help someone who may be a victim of Human Trafficking. For more info, please visit: http://www.vta.org/news-and-media/connect-with-vta/january-is-human-trafficking- Prevention-Month#.VK7b3yvF-PY Please feel free to share this information to your constituents. Thank you. Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95134 408.321.5680 board.secretary@vta.org

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority DATE: January 16, 2015 SUBJECT: State Legislative Update: Governor s FY 2016 Budget On January 9, Gov. Jerry Brown submitted his FY 2016 budget to the Legislature. In general, the budget acknowledges that the state s General Fund will have a surplus for the third year in a row, but lays out a cautious approach that restrains growth in spending, and focuses on paying down debt and other liabilities. According to the budget: The fiscal stability from a balanced budget and a recovering state economy has been a welcome reprieve from the prior decade s massive budget shortfalls. Yet, maintaining a balanced budget for the long term will be an ongoing challenge requiring fiscal restraint and prudence. Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget notes that a strengthening state economy is continuing to push revenues higher. However, because of the Proposition 98 funding guarantee, most of those revenues will be dedicated to K-12 public education and community colleges. On the other hand, a growth in costs resulting from implementing the federal Affordable Care Act, fighting wildfires and addressing state prison overcrowding means that, despite stronger revenues, the budget remains precariously balanced. In addition, the state has hundreds of billions of dollars in existing liabilities, such as deferred maintenance on its infrastructure, and unfunded liabilities related to retiree health care and pension benefits for state employees. Among the numerous recommendations contained in Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget are the following: Investing an additional $8 billion in K-12 schools and community colleges. Increasing spending for the University of California system, but only if its Board of Trustees caps out-of-state enrollment and freezes tuition. Paying for an expansion of Medi-Cal benefits that is allowed under the Affordable Care Act. Establishing a new tax on managed care plans to help pay for in-home supportive services. Spending $532 million from the water bond that was approved by the voters last November. Scaling back the state s oversight role as the dissolution of redevelopment agencies winds down. Reducing California s unfunded retiree health care liability by seeking agreements from the state s collective bargaining units to have employees pay more for this benefit.

The FY 2016 budget is the first to occur since the passage of Proposition 2 in November 2014. This highly complex ballot measure significantly alters how the state saves money and uses its budget reserves. For the upcoming fiscal year, Proposition 2 captures $2.4 billion of the projected General Fund surplus, and requires that half be used to pay down debt and half be held as reserves in the Budget Stabilization Account. The FY 2016 budget also will be the last to include the complete pieces of Proposition 30, which imposed an income tax surcharge on wealthier Californians and raised the state sales tax rate by onequarter of 1 percent. The sales tax increase, which took effect in January 2013, is scheduled to expire at the end of the 2016 calendar year, while the income tax surcharge would conclude at the end of the 2018 tax year. Some Democratic lawmakers have called for either extending or making permanent these tax hikes, either through the legislative process or by another ballot measure. However, forecasts developed by the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO) project that income and sales tax revenues would continue to grow even as the Proposition 30 increases drop off. Furthermore, Gov. Brown has publicly indicated that he is not inclined to support a continuation of Proposition 30. Included in the transportation portion of Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget is a somewhat lengthy policy discussion aimed at justifying the need to beef up funding for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) in order to provide additional resources to maintain and rehabilitate the state highway system. While the budget highlights the $6 billion annual SHOPP shortfall, it does not offer a solution to this problem. Instead, the Governor is using the budget as a call to action, encouraging his administration, the Legislature and transportation stakeholders to work together to figure it out, most likely through the California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP) workgroup that was set up by Transportation Secretary Brian Kelly in 2013. However, the budget does provide a few hints in terms of how the Brown Administration will position itself for these conversations. Perhaps most telling, the budget points out that in considering new revenue sources, the state must focus funding on the priorities that are the state s core responsibility maintaining and operating the state s network of highways and interstates, and improving the highest priority freight corridors. When it comes to local streets/roads and public transit, the budget says new local-option revenues should be considered for these investments. In addition, the Governor s budget notes: Additional borrowing through bonds would not be appropriate, not only because the funding gap is an ongoing one, but also because roughly one out of every two dollars spent on bondfunded infrastructure goes to pay interest costs rather than construction costs, and currently 9 percent of total transportation revenues are spent on debt service. As the state explores options for maintaining state highways and investing in key trade corridors, it is appropriate to consider the weight of vehicles, which is directly related to the wear and tear on the state s highway system. Other transportation-related elements of Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget are as follows: 2

Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds: In his FY 2016 budget, the Governor is estimating that $1 billion in cap-and-trade revenues would be generated from four allowance auctions that will be held by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during the upcoming fiscal year. The growth in anticipated cap-and-trade revenues from the prior fiscal year is due in large part to the addition of transportation fuels to the system, beginning January 1, 2015. The $1 billion number is acting as a placeholder, and mostly likely will be revised based on the results of the allowance auctions that CARB is scheduled to hold in February and May. Having said that, Gov. Brown s budget does show how $1 billion in cap-and-trade auction proceeds would be distributed pursuant to the investment framework that was put in place through the enactment of SB 862 last year. That distribution is as follows: Low Carbon Transit Operations Program = $50 million. SB 862 dedicates 5 percent of cap-andtrade auction proceeds to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program. This formula-based program provides operating and capital assistance to public transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve mobility, and enhance or expand service to increase mode share. Under this program, funding flows to public transit agencies according to the State Transit Assistance Program (STA) formula. If a public transit agency s service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of its funding must be used for projects or services that benefit those communities. Caltrans is the grant administrator for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and is responsible for reviewing and approving the proposed list of expenditures submitted by each public transit agency for its formula share. Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program = $100 million. SB 862 calls for allocating 10 percent of cap-and-trade auction proceeds to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. This competitive grant program is intended to fund capital improvements and operational investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and modernize intercity, commuter and urban transit systems. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) is responsible for selecting the projects to be funded under this program, while the California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the grants. SB 862 requires 25 percent of the money allocated to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program to be spent in a way that benefits disadvantaged communities. Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program = $200 million. SB 862 sets aside 20 percent of cap-and-trade auction proceeds for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. This program provides grant funds on a competitive basis for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices that support infill and compact development. The Strategic Growth Council is responsible for administering the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. SB 862 establishes a goal of spending 50 percent of available funding under this program to benefit disadvantaged communities. In addition, at least half of the money must be used for affordable housing projects. High-Speed Rail = $250 million. SB 862 requires 25 percent of the annual amount of cap-andtrade auction proceeds to be allocated for high-speed rail. In FY 2016, these funds would be used for construction of the initial piece of the state s proposed high-speed rail system in the Central Valley, and for further environmental and design work related to other segments of the project. 3

Miscellaneous = $400 million. SB 862 calls for setting aside 40 percent of annual cap-and-trade auction proceeds for low-carbon transportation, as well as for energy efficiency, clean energy, weatherization, wetlands and coastal watersheds, fire prevention and urban forestry, and waste diversion. How much would be appropriated in any given fiscal year to each of these categories would be determined by the Legislature during the annual budget process. Of the $400 million, the Governor s FY 2016 budget recommends that: (1) $200 million be distributed to CARB to augment its existing programs that provide rebates for zero-emission cars, and vouchers for hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses; (2) $110 million for energy efficiency programs; and (3) $90 million for wetlands/watershed, fire prevention/urban forestry, and waste diversion programs. According to Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is necessary to avoid the most disruptive impacts of climate change. Therefore, the budget recommends that the Brown Administration work with the Legislature and stakeholders to develop a midterm reduction target for 2030 that is consistent with this 2050 objective for stabilizing climate change, and to develop an integrated, economy-wide plan for meeting this target. The budget references nine key areas that should be part of this plan, including: (1) reductions in the use of petroleum-based transportation fuels and the number of vehicle miles traveled statewide; and (2) the continuation of current policies that put a price on carbon in order to reflect the costs that greenhouse gas emissions impose on society and provide an incentive for the development of cleaner technologies. Roadway Usage Charge: Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget proposes five new positions and $9.4 million in State Highway Account funding to begin moving forward with the Roadway Usage Charge Pilot Program that CalSTA is required to implement pursuant to the enactment of SB 1077 (DeSaulnier) last year. The purpose of this pilot program is to explore the feasibility of replacing the state s current per-gallon, gasoline excise tax with a mileage-based revenue collection system to fund California s transportation infrastructure. Under the provisions of SB 1077, CalSTA is required to submit a final report and recommendations based on the results of the pilot program to the Governor and the Legislature by June 30, 2018. Vehicle Weight Fee Revenues: The Governor s FY 2016 budget calls for transferring vehicle weight fee revenues from the State Highway Account to the General Fund to pay for debt service related to general obligation bonds that have been issued for transportation purposes. This recommendation is consistent with the complex restructuring of transportation funding sources that was originally enacted in 2010, and then reaffirmed in 2011 in order to fix a series of problems that resulted from the passage of several ballot measures in November 2010. STA: Revenues for the State Transit Assistance Program (STA) are derived entirely from the sales tax on diesel fuel. For FY 2016, STA is projected to be $387.8 million, which is slightly more than the current-year level of $385.9 million. Because STA revenues are highly volatile and are difficult to project, the budget typically includes an estimate, rather than a line-item appropriation for this program. Legislative Proposals: The Governor s FY 2016 budget references two transportation-related legislative proposals that the administration plans to pursue. They are as follows: (1) expanding the authority for local agencies and Caltrans to implement express lanes in state highway corridors; and 4

(2) streamlining the process for relinquishing routes that are currently on the state highway system to local agencies. The release of Gov. Brown s FY 2016 budget is the first step in what is typically a six-month process. Over the next several months, various Assembly and Senate budget subcommittees will hold hearings and begin putting together the pieces of the FY 2016 Budget Act, which is required to be approved by the Legislature by midnight on June 15. If that deadline is not met, lawmakers would begin forfeiting their pay. Most of the major decisions by the Legislature will be deferred until after the Governor submits his FY 2016 May Revise, which will include updated revenue and expenditure estimates. 5

From: Board.Secretary Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 5:07 PM To: VTA Board of Directors Subject: VTA Correspondence: Additional Comments on SR 85 and Additional Petitions for the VTA Board to Save the Alum Rock BART Station VTA Board of Directors: Please see attached correspondence: Additional comments regarding State Route (SR) 85 (two letters) Additional petitions to include and support the 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART station If you have questions, please reply to this message. Thank you. Office of the Board Secretary Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95134 408.321.5680 board.secretary@vta.org

Post Office Box 41034 San Jose, CA 95160 January 8, 2015 Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority c/o Elaine F. Baltao, Board Secretary 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 Dear Board Members: The Almaden Valley Community Association believes that the expansion of CA 85 from its existing three lanes to four lanes is extremely important to the residents of our community. While the CA 85 performance during non-peak times is excellent, during the ever-extending morning and evening rush hours, the average speed drops to around 15 MPH. That average frequently includes periods when cars are at a dead stop. We can see no alternative to expanding the highway from three lanes to four lanes over the greatest spans possible. When the environmental impact report is done, we recommend that the impact of NOT effecting the expansion also be considered. Since high density housing is being added in the vicinities of the Cottle Road, Santa Teresa and Bascom Avenue entrances to 85, there is no question that the vehicle load will continue to increase. Some of the problems associated with inaction include: Increased pressure on residential streets through Los Gatos, Saratoga and Cupertino as quicker alternatives to the congested freeway. Increased air pollution associated with cars idling, accelerating and decelerating throughout the congested region. Increased highway death and mayhem resulting from the sudden changes from relatively free traffic flow to dead stops. Increased highway death and mayhem resulting from undisciplined lane changes to seize the illusion of a better lane. There are some who dream of CA 85 as a rail transit corridor. Particularly from CA 87 northward, that is a futile dream because the development of employment sites, especially in Cupertino, is following a historical pattern that is based on automobile access to those sites. The only rapid transit hope is a model pioneered by Google, in which dedicated employee buses provide quick, convenient access to their work sites. However, with CA 85 as it is currently configured, quick access is an illusion. Quicker access may be available by avoiding 85 and driving the streets of Saratoga and Cupertino.

Since the right-of-way exists to expand CA 85 from CA 87 to I 280, that expansion should be done as quickly as possible. That will benefit the 39,000 residents of Almaden Valley; it will benefit the 26,000 residents of Saratoga, and it will benefit the other communities lining that highway. Cordially yours, Bob Strain, President Almaden Valley Community Association cc. AVCA Board Members John Ristow, VTA Director of Planning & Program Development

-_,, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority c/o Elaine F. Baltao, Board Secretary 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134 December 29,2014 Dear Board Members: I have lived in Almaden Valley for thirty years, and only recently moved to Marin County. I return to Almaden Valley frequently to visit my many friends. As a past president of the AVCAQ, I keep up with the news of my former neighborhood. Upon reading the letter from their current president written on December 22, I felt that I need to support strongly the board request to increase the number of lanes on Highway 85. A couple weeks ago, I left my home at 4:00PM with my wife to visit in New Almaden on a Wednesday evening. To my horror it took almost three hours to travel the 80 miles, much of it spent in gridlock on 85 even in the carpool lane. The highway was designed for the four lanes. 1 urge you to begin planning to help the many new residents of San Jose travel around the county before the gridlock occurs at all hours ofthe day. Sincerely, ~'Cl.Jl-~ Art Boudreault

From: District 5 United Sent: Tue 12/23/2014 3:57 PM To: General Manager; Gonot, Carolyn; Ristow, John; cindy.chavez; ken.yeager; jamie.matthews; Board.Secretary; dave.cortese; Valles, Colleen; Pearse, Brent; ed.shikada; Freitas, Harry; Kim.Walesh; Larsen, Hans; Jessica.Zenk; Michael.Brilliot; leslie.xavier; District1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; pierluigi.oliverio; District7@sanjoseca.gov; District8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; mike.wasserman Subject: Save the Alum Rock BART station** Dear Valley Transportation Authority, City of San Jose s Mayor & City Council Members, San Jose City Manager, and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I petition the VTA Board to save the Alum Rock BART station by including and supporting the 28th Street location in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program planning. Our community deserves to have this major transportation hub located within our community as promised. The 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station has been a part of the BART extension to San Jose Phase 2 Planning for years. Since 2001, the Alum Rock community has worked with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on concepts for the Alum Rock BART Station. The "Urban Village" concept embraces the BART Station as an important facet of the community and will have a positive economic impact on the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed station. The Urban Village designs were presented to the San Jose City Council in November 2013 and were unanimously adopted and included in the City s General Plan. The plan has also received the support of the Envision 2040 Task Force. The 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station has a Park-n-Ride lot conveniently located immediately adjacent to an interchange on Highway 101 and would serve commuters from south county who work north of San Jose in areas with BART access. Commuters using the Alum Rock section of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that is presently under construction would be able to transfer to BART at this location, providing addition public transit access to the community. In addition, the Urban Village plan would provide 4,050 jobs and 845 housing units to the residents of East San Jose. However, now the 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station is fast becoming another broken promise from the VTA to the residents of East San Jose. The VTA has a long history of reneging on promises made to East San Jose, a community with a large population of residents who depend on public transit to get to work and school. In 2002, the VTA promised Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock transit corridor in their Downtown East Valley Transit Improvement Plan. The proposed Light Rail route would have connected the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol LRT line to the San Jose Diridon Station in Downtown San Jose. The VTA also promised LRT service along the entire length of Capitol Expressway from the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol LRT line to Eastridge Mall, and continuing to the existing Guadalupe LRT line. These promises were broken in favor of the BART to San Jose Proposal. Rather than the promised Light Rail service in East San Jose, VTA

is building Bus Rapid Transit from Eastridge to downtown. The proposed LRT extension along Capitol Expressway has been postponed until funds become available in the future. East San Jose residents were promised trains and are getting expanded bus service. On October 6th, the VTA unilaterally proposed to the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program Working Committee the elimination of the 28th Street BART station and inclusion of an Alum Rock station at E. Santa Clara St (near 23rd St), This new location is not located in the Alum Rock community, does not have accessible parking, and is located in a neighborhood of singlefamily homes. This new proposed plan virtually eliminates direct BART access to the residents of East San Jose. Once again, East San Jose residents were promised trains, but this time will get NOTHING. Therefore, I make the following petition: Whereas, the elimination of the 28th Street BART station location demonstrates a blatant disregard for a community who has worked with the VTA in good faith for over a decade; and Whereas, previously promised extensions of Light Rail Service promised to East San Jose residents have been eliminated and/or postponed indefinitely in favor of a BART extension; and Whereas, the residents of East San Jose have continuously supported sales taxes to support transit extension in Santa Clara County ($1.4 Billion to date) including extensions of service to East San Jose; and Whereas, the San Jose City Council approved Urban Village plans that will provide much needed economic opportunities for East San Jose Residents are dependent on the existence of the 28th St location; I therefore petition the VTA Board to provide direct access to public transit services and improvements in East San Jose, I petition the VTA to include and support the 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART station in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program planning. Our community deserves to have this major transportation hub located within the community as promised. Respectfully submitted, You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond (if you prefer) to my concern regarding the the Alum Rock BART station, nor may you share my contact information with any other organization(s) or individual(s). -- This mail was sent on behalf of a San Jose resident via San Jose's District 5 United! Community Working Together district5united.org www.facebook.com/district5united www.youtube.com/district5united

From: San Jose United Sent: Tue 12/23/2014 6:18 PM To: General Manager; Gonot, Carolyn; Ristow, John; cindy.chavez; ken.yeager; jamie.matthews; Board.Secretary; dave.cortese; Valles, Colleen; Pearse, Brent; ed.shikada; Freitas, Harry; Kim.Walesh; Larsen, Hans; Jessica.Zenk; Michael.Brilliot; leslie.xavier; District1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; pierluigi.oliverio; District7@sanjoseca.gov; District8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; district5united@gmail.com; mike.wasserman Subject: Save the Alum Rock BART station** Dear Valley Transportation Authority, City of San Jose s Mayor & City Council Members, San Jose City Manager, and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I petition the VTA Board to save the Alum Rock BART station by including and supporting the 28th Street location in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program planning. Our community deserves to have this major transportation hub located within our community as promised. The 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station has been a part of the BART extension to San Jose Phase 2 Planning for years. Since 2001, the Alum Rock community has worked with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on concepts for the Alum Rock BART Station. The "Urban Village" concept embraces the BART Station as an important facet of the community and will have a positive economic impact on the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed station. The Urban Village designs were presented to the San Jose City Council in November 2013 and were unanimously adopted and included in the City s General Plan. The plan has also received the support of the Envision 2040 Task Force. The 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station has a Park-n-Ride lot conveniently located immediately adjacent to an interchange on Highway 101 and would serve commuters from south county who work north of San Jose in areas with BART access. Commuters using the Alum Rock section of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that is presently under construction would be able to transfer to BART at this location, providing addition public transit access to the community. In addition, the Urban Village plan would provide 4,050 jobs and 845 housing units to the residents of East San Jose. However, now the 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART Station is fast becoming another broken promise from the VTA to the residents of East San Jose. On October 6th, the VTA unilaterally proposed to the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program Working Committee the elimination of the 28th Street BART station and inclusion of an Alum Rock station at E. Santa Clara St (near 23rd St). This new location is not located in the Alum Rock community, does not have accessible parking, and is located in a neighborhood of singlefamily homes. This new proposed plan virtually eliminates direct BART access to the residents of East San Jose. Once again, East San Jose residents were promised trains, but this time will get NOTHING.

Therefore, I make the following petition: Whereas, the elimination of the 28th Street BART station location demonstrates a blatant disregard for a community who has worked with the VTA in good faith for over a decade; and Whereas, previously promised extensions of Light Rail Service promised to East San Jose residents have been eliminated and/or postponed indefinitely in favor of a BART extension; and Whereas, the residents of East San Jose have continuously supported sales taxes to support transit extension in Santa Clara County ($1.4 Billion to date) including extensions of service to East San Jose; and Whereas, the San Jose City Council approved Urban Village plans that will provide much needed economic opportunities for East San Jose Residents are dependent on the existence of the 28th St location; I therefore petition the VTA Board to provide direct access to public transit services and improvements in East San Jose, I petition the VTA to include and support the 28th Street location for the Alum Rock BART station in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program planning. This community deserves to have this major transportation hub located within the community as promised. Respectfully submitted, You may not use my contact information for any purpose other than to respond (if you prefer) to my concern regarding the the Alum Rock BART station, nor may you share my contact information with any other organization(s) or individual(s). -- This e-mail was sent via San Jose United (http://sanjoseunited.net)

** Email on page 1 and 2 were received from the following individuals. Additional comments in the email, if any, are included below the individual s name. Senders are from the City of San Jose, unless noted otherwise. The comments were copied and pasted as is; no edits were made. Roy Frankilin Que-Heath Is there still planning to use the old Bank of America as a entry way for the BART 1st and Santa Clara station? I would like that. Carol Jones Please do not close this station! It is an area where many NEED this transportation for shopping and education. We have friends & family who use this station to visit us and go to dinner downtown. Garrick Kwan We want easy transfer from 522/23 to BART. Valerie Trovato Our East Side communities are encouraged by the hope of the 28th street Bart Hub. Our entire San Jose East Side communities are tired of being disregarded. Our families are dedicated to improving quality of life and higher education. We need to connect to the opportunities via transit to continue to build our equity as community. Robert S. Allen Livermore 94551 OVER US 101; former WP profile and line; future San Fernando Street subway with SJSU station near 10th Street. Much shorter (and lower cost) subway). At grade along Caltrain through and beyond Diridon.