Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

The Regular Meeting of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Jensen in Room B-104, VTA, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Absent
Mahmoud Kamangar
William F. (Bill) Manry
Bill Reisinger
Curt Riffle
Al Slechta
John Sullivan, Chairperson
Joe Walton

A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Amos Rendler, Interested Citizen, asked when the sidewalk would be complete on the section of Hedding Street that runs under Route 87.

The Committee of the Whole referred the question to staff for response.

David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, reported that the proposed VTA Fare Policy was discussed at all of the October 2003 Board Standing and Advisory Committee meetings and as a result revisions were made to the Fare Policy. He reported that charts showing pricing results based on the current base fare of $1.50 and a future base fare of $1.75 were added to the Policy as well as a summary of transfer arrangements with adjoining and overlapping transit operators.

Member Anderson arrived at 6:10 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Mr. Sousjord addressed questions received from Member de La Beaujardiere via e-mail regarding: 1) ADA Paratransit fare box recovery and costs, 2) if fare box recovery ratios are broken down by bus, light rail, Paratransit, BART and Bus Rapid Transit, 3) operational efficiency, 4) discounts for poor people and if there is a national or state ID card that VTA could recognize to facilitate such a fare, and 5) the high cost of Day Passes and Express fares.

Mr. Sausjourd responded that: 1) Paratransit brought in eight percent of the fare box recovery in the first quarter of FY 2003 an improvement over the prior year with total costs per boarding just under $30, several dollars lower than last year, 2) fare box recovery ratios by mode have not been calculated primarily because much of VTA´s fare revenues go to Monthly Passes, Day Passes, ECO Passes and Day Pass tokens and that VTA´s fare system is designed as a unified system between bus and rail, 3) there has been significant effort by the Board of Directors and the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee to increase the number of riders per hour and streamline scheduling to address operational efficiency, 4) VTA has discounts and programs in place for students, seniors, and disabled and was not aware if there are any national or State ID Cards issued to facilitate a discount fares for people with a low income, and, 5) the Day Pass is good for multiple rides daily and although riders use it on an average of four times a day the Day Pass fare is calculated at only three times the base fare. He noted that Express fare services are more costly due to several factors including low passenger turnover.

On order of Vice Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the staff report on VTA´s Fare Policy was received and filed.

Mike Aro, Operations Deputy Director, noted that the Committee received a copy of the Draft Service Management Plan and a power point presentation at the last BPAC Meeting on October 8, 2003. Mr. Aro welcomed comments from the Committee and provided a brief summary of the report from last month. He reported that VTA has always had service standards and guidelines to evaluate and plan services. He reported that the Board of Directors requested the service standards and guidelines be updated in light of VTA's current financial situation and further suggested that the standards should address target and minimum acceptable measures of route productivity by route and service type. Mr. Aro reported that the Plan is broken into four parts: 1) service area/transit network design, 2) service design guidelines, 3) service evaluation policy, and 4) the service change process.

Member de La Beaujardiere asked if consideration had been given to the fact that service performance on some bus lines such as Line 22 may lack efficiency due to the amount of riders paying fares as they board and asked if a bus rapid corridor plan on Line 22 was still being considered. Mr. Aro responded that a bus rapid corridor for Line 22 is being considered with signal priority for the Line 22 route on the El Camino Corridor from Palo Alto to Sunnyvale as the first phase, and eventually continue to San Jose. He reported that placing ticket vending machines at some of the heavier boarding areas along the line to allow riders to pre-pay fares before boarding is also being considered.

Upon query by Member de La Beaujardiere regarding how route elimination is determined without stranding neighborhoods, Mr. Aro referred to Page 3-6 of the Draft Service Management Plan "Lifeline Considerations" and noted that if it is determined that a route targeted for elimination meets lifeline characteristics as defined in the Plan, consideration will be given to continue to operate service at some minimum level.

Member Stallman provided the following comments for consideration: 1) Page iii, under Part 3-Service Evaluation Policy, fourth Bullet, strike the language "enhance transit service" and replace with "reduce operational cost," 2) Page 1-5, Figure 1-3, include Caltrain information, 3) Page 3-5, under 3.3.2 Operational Adjustments, first bullet, add language indicating consistent hourly bus headways; include additional bullet language as follows: a) connect key nodes to avoid transfers; b) increase the speed of service; c) bus rapid transit; d) signal pre-emption; e) coordinate transfers with other transit systems, 4) Page 4-5, Figure 4-1, Service Change Process, should show information regarding service changes forwarded to the originator. Member Stallman stated that we should strive to increase ridership rather than decrease service.

Member Anderson brought the Committee's attention to Page 3-7, Section 3.5 Light Rail Service Evaluation, and suggested that "at least 15 minute headways" should read "a minimum of 15 minute headways."

Member Eltgroth encouraged coordination with Caltrain. He referred to Page 4-4, Section 4.2.1 Service Changes Requiring Formal Approval, and questioned where the 25 percent figure originated requiring formal approval for service changes to be submitted to VTA Board of Directors for review. Mr. Aro responded that the figure was a carry over from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Guidelines.

Member Wadler stated that the main goal should be to increase ridership not decrease service and if coordinating with Caltrain can accomplish that goal it should become a priority.

On order of Vice Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the Service Management Plan was received and filed.

Carolyn Gonot, Congestion Management Deputy Director, directed the Committee's attention to the Draft 2003 Congestion Management Program for Santa Clara County (CMP). Ms. Gonot reported that the CMP is produced every two years and reported to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in compliance with state legislature and state law requirements. She noted that the CMP defines a required set of elements that include: a system definition and traffic Level of Service (LOS) standard, multimodal performance measures, transportation demand management and trip reduction, land use impact analysis, and capital improvement programs. She reported that a section discussing the Community Design and Transportation Program and an updated Capital Improvements Program section are new additions to the CMP. She noted that the next CMP will address the implications of Senate Bill 1636 (Figueroa) which allows infill development opportunity areas exemption from LOS guidelines.

Upon query by Member Simons, Ms. Gonot responded that infill opportunity development area projects are not required to meet LOS guidelines and would not be seen as a deficiency by the CMP. Member Simons expressed concern regarding a negative impact resulting in the loss of bicycle facilities due to the need to acquire footage for automobile capacity.

Member Thielges expressed concern regarding the need to ensure that the automobile element of the transportation network does not negatively impact alternate modes of transportation and asked if the CMP addressed this issue.

Ms. Gonot noted that currently this concern is being offset through the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and by using alternative mitigations. Ms. Gonot requested that any additional comments be sent to the Board Secretary's Office.

On order of Vice Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the 2003 Congestion Management Plan was received and filed.

Celia Chung, Senior Transportation Planner, noted that this is the first Tier 1 Bicycle Project Annual Report. The report includes a list of 22 projects and the status for each and a map of all the project locations. She reported that most of the projects are proceeding however the state budget crisis impacted the progress of some projects due to delays in STIP funding. Some project sponsors are concerned with their ability to secure the required 20 percent local matching funds. She stated that under Fiscal Impacts on the second page of the Board Memorandum information should have been added regarding how funding for the Regional Bicycle Program might impact Tier 1 Projects. She reported that the current ten-year expenditure program could face a 10 percent reduction of funds. She reported that there is a $2 million reserve therefore none of the projects would be forced to take less than what they were allocated by the VTA Board of Directors.

Member Thielges asked what a PSR means referring to Sunnyvale Project #20, Borregas Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing. Ms. Chung responded that a PSR is a Project Study Report similar to a feasibility study and is required by Caltrans.

Member Simons noted that Sunnyvale Project #21, Bernardo Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing, is moving along more quickly since the addition of a new consultant on the Project.

Member Anderson noted the status of Los Altos Project #9, Stevens Creek Feasibility Study is that the City plans to drop the project due to lack of support. Member Anderson asked where the lack of support was coming from. Ms. Chung responded that the project spans a distance between Sunnyvale and Los Altos and under the assumption that Sunnyvale would support the project and possibly contribute a portion of the required local match Los Altos applied for Tier 1 funding. After the project was approved for Tier 1 and the process started the City of Sunnyvale shifted focus.

Member Simons requested that the project be revisited because Sunnyvale has a majority of new City Council and he believes there would be great support for the Project.

Member Stallman noted that quarterly meetings are held at the regional level to address projects that have reached an impasse and suggested that Sunnyvale Project #20, Borregas Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossings be brought to one of the meetings.

Member Stallman noted Sunnyvale Project #21, Bernardo Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing is on the roster for Tier 1 and asked if that was an indication of the project moving forward. Ms. Chung responded that the Bernardo Project was placed on Tier 1, however, there was no funding in Tier 1 last year when it was approved. It was put on the list as a placeholder and the City of Sunnyvale was going to assume responsibility for the Feasibility Study and developing cost estimates to provide a dollar amount to work with in terms of positioning the Project into Tier 1 for actual funding.

Member Stallman noted Saratoga Project #19, De Anza Trail that a meeting is scheduled for December 3, 2003, to publicly validate as part of their review of the Capital Expenditure Plan the $200,000 in local match contributed by an anonymous.

Mr. Stallman asked regarding VTA Project #22, Pilot Parking Program if the TFCA was awarded. Ms. Chung stated that VTA did get the grant and in the process of signing for a transfer agreement.

Member Eltgroth asked when bicycle-parking racks will begin to be installed. Ms. Chung noted that installation will begin early in 2004 after field surveys are conducted to prioritize the list of requested locations.

Upon query by Member Stallman, Ms. Chung responded that the Programs $200,000 will cover approximately 70 percent of the identified locations.

Samantha Swan, Transportation Planner II, provided an overview of the Proactive Congestion Management Program (CMP) Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report contained in the agenda packet.

Vice Chairperson Jensen, stated that regarding bicycle facilities on Winchester Boulevard the Town of Los Gatos has expressed concern for the safety of children that would potentially be living at this project and would need to walk through the Intersection of Winchester and Knolls. He encouraged consideration of pedestrian improvements particularly when there is a connection to schools.

Member Thielges referred to Page 5 of 10 regarding City of San Jose Venetian Terrace Gardens. He commended the comments regarding improving the connectivity of the neighborhood.

Member Eltgroth noted that regarding the City of Gilroy Super Wal-Mart Store that VTA's comment was to "Provide bus stop improvements according to VTA standards" and asked if bicycle parking would be included. Ms. Swan responded that bicycle parking would be considered when the project is in the Environment Improvement Report (EIR) phase of the project.

Member Jensen announced that he requested the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to place pedestrian travel information on their website.

Member de La Beaujardiere announced that he will not be able to attend the December BPAC meeting.

Member Thielges announced that bike route signs have been appearing in San Jose and although he is pleased to see them he would prefer the City of San Jose use a countywide standard. He encouraged VTA to complete the Technical Guidelines section having to do with directional route signs noting that the City of San Jose could then be approached and encouraged to use a standardized signage convention.

Member Eltgroth announced that he and John Brazil will be conducting Bicycle Education classes that will alternate between Morgan Hill and San Jose.

On order of Vice Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara R. Cappa, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors