Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairperson Sullivan in Room B-104, VTA, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present

A quorum was present.

There were no Public Presentations.

Member Riffle requested that with regard to his comments on Agenda Item #12., Announcements, Hetch-Hetchy Passway be changed to Hetch-Hetchy Pathway and funding will expire to we thought funding would expire. 

M/S/C (Riffle/Eltgroth) on a vote of 12 yeas, 0 noes and 1 abstention, to approve the Minutes of March 20, 2004.   Member Anderson abstained.

There was no Committee Staff Report.

Mr. Sullivan provided an update on the pedestrian prohibition on signs on expressways and reported that he and Kevin Jackson spoke at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on April 6, 2004, to advise of errors in the Roads and Airport Staff Report.   Mr. Sullivan stated that he provided a photograph of a pedestrian gate which ends 150 feet south of Forbes Avenue and San Tomas Expressway, and a photograph of a pedestrian prohibited sign at the corner of Forbes Avenue and San Tomas Expressway south.   Mr. Sullivan noted that Board of Supervisors requested clarification of the report.

Member Simons took his seat at 6:13 p.m.

Mr. Sullivan advised that the item is agendized for the Board of Supervisors May 4, 2004 meeting. 

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, there being no objection, the Chairpersons Report was received.

David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, reported that per the Fare Policy, which was adopted in December 2003, staff is presenting a proposal to increase the base fare to $1.75, effective January 2005.   Both the fixed route and the Paratransit rate be increased not completely proportionately but increased based on the base fare.

Mr. Sausjord distributed the Summary of Comments Received Regarding Proposed Fare Changes to the BPAC Members for their information.

Mr. Sausjord stated that there have been six community meetings in the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Gilroy wherein staff presented the same information presented to the BPAC.   Comments from the public were gathered and a summary of the comments was provided to BPAC Members, which stated that 99 members of the public who attended various community meetings expressed concern regarding Paratransit. 

Mr. Sausjord noted that a decision was made at the executive level that the proposed price for the Senior/Disabled Pass will be modified from $27.50 to $26.00, which is within the range specified in the Fare Policy. 

Mr. Sausjord stated that Accessible Services stated they are proposing to revisit Paratransit service in South County over the next year and extended deferral for a special out-of-service area surcharge to the South County area only for an additional year pending completion of a study.

Mr. Sausjord advised that the information is being presented to the Advisory Committees this week, to the Standing Committees next week, final recommendations will be presented to the Administration and Finance Committee and discussion with the two remaining Standing Committee in May 2004, and to the Board of Directors in June 2004 for adoption.

Member Sullivan queried as to the surcharge and if it is a new idea.   Mr. Sausjord responded that the surcharge is a part of the Service Management Plan adopted June 2003, which focuses on controlling the cost by reconsidering the services provided and required by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

Member Walton queried what is done with information gathered at Community Meetings.   Mr. Sausjord replied that all of the gathered information will be provided to the Board of Directors.

Member Walton recommended that a mechanism be developed for providing information to the public that have expressed concern at public meetings.

Member Reisinger queried if the Eco Pass Program is still profitable.   Mr. Sausjord responded that in 2003 there were 150,000 Eco Pass Cards, including the San Jose State students and facility and this year it is down to 135,000 and the ridership on Eco Pass is holding stable.   Mr. Reisinger queried if the cost structure to the companies that participate has been increased.  Mr. Sausjord responded that the Eco Pass increased  30 percent in 2003 the impacts over the last few months from that increase it is an average revenue for boarding.  Mr. Sausjord noted that the Fare Policy was adopted in December 2003.  Mr. Reisinger queried if increasing the cost of the Eco Pass has been explored as a possible source of increasing revenue.  Mr. Sausjord responded that there was 30 percent increase in 2003, a 15 percent increase in the past, and the Eco Pass will continue to be a part of the mix if there is any further fare increases.

Member de la Beaujardiere queried as to hourly operating costs for a bus.   Mr. Sausjord stated it is $160 to $170 operating cost for total service hour, which combines both bus and light rail together.

Member Muniz queried how South County is defined and studied with regard to fares.   Mr. Sausjord replied that with regard to fares, South County areas are not considered with the exception of paratransit service areas which are exempted from the surcharge. 

Mr. Sausjord advised that Service Operations and Planning Department have studied the South County and report is available for Mr. Muniz review.

Member Stallman took his seat at 6:33 p.m.

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, there being no objection, the Proposed Fare Modification was reviewed on commented on.

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, distributed the Pedestrian Technical Guidelines.

Mr. Augenstein provided VTA's Community Design & Transportation Program to Member Muniz per his request at the BPAC Meeting of March 10, 2004.

Mr. Augenstein advised that staff attended the March 2004 Board Workshop held after BPAC's March 7, 2004 Meeting and staff was not able to provide all of the information and discussion of the Project List and Program Allocations and was deferred for revision at the Board of Director's Workshop of April 23, 2004.  Mr. Augenstein encouraged BPAC Members to attend the Workshop at the San Jose Hyatt, Mediterranean Center, 1740 North First Street, San Jose, California at 8:30 a.m.  Mr. Augenstein noted that the Board of Directors did not provide any comments at the Board Meeting on April 1, 2004 but comments from the Public were accepted. 

Mr. Augenstein explained the difference between a planning document and a programming document stating that the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) and Regional Transit Program (RTP) are planning documents which provide a list of projects the Board of Directors would like completed within a timeframe of the plan.  Board Members do not set when priorities and schedules, programs, and projects get implemented, that is decided in a programming document such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and are in a range anywhere from three-to-four years and up to ten years.   Upon completing the VTP 2030 process staff develops a project list and present to the Board of Directors to develop an expenditure program and at that time the Board of Directors determine the project allocations.  The goal with this process is to get the projects into the RTP and continue to move projects forward.  The projects have be in the RTP to compete for state or federal funds or if recommended moved into an environmental or construction phase. 

Mr. Augenstein stated that Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has indicated to staff that all of the Measure A Projects that can be covered in their projected revenue for the 1996 Measure A Program can actually go into the 25-year program and it is for that reason that the transit table is reflecting a 30-year program.   All of the projects whether fiscally constrained, unconstrained, or Big Ten part of the plan will be included in the RTP. 

Mr. Augenstein reported that with regard to Public Outreach, there have been a number of public meetings in the cities of San Jose, Milpitas, Mountain View, Campbell, and Morgan Hill with over 200 people in attendance of those meetings.  The website, www.vta.org, has had over 300,000 hits, over 300 people have completed the survey, and 200 other people completed a portion of the survey.  Staff also received input from Advisory Committees, Standing Committees, the Board of Directors, and the general public. 

Mr. Augenstein stated that the following are the VTP 2030 Program Areas: 

A.  Transit Program
Over $5 billion is available for the life of the Transit Program Plan including the 30-year horizon for Measure A.

Mr. Augenstein noted that all of Measure A Projects with the exception of Phase II of the New Rail Corridors and Zero Emission Buses (ZEB) are going into the fiscally constrained part of the Plan.   Mr. Augenstein stated that ZEB buses can be funded with both 1996 Measure A funds and with federal dollars or rehab dollars so the ZEB program can be increased with other funds.  One bus has been delivered to VTA with two more scheduled to be determined in May or June 2004.   Staff will go through the evaluation program with ZEBs and re-evaluate the technology and see what if anything can be implemented efficiently over the next year.

B. Freeway/Highway Program
This Program has an allocation amount of $446 million and has identified 38 projects.   Since the last time this list was brought the Committees no projects have been added.   Mr. Augenstein noted that staff has been working with cities to rescope projects.

C. Expressway Program
This Program has a $150 million allocation with no changes to the project list.

D. Local Streets and County Roads Program
A project has been added for Los Altos Hills with the allocation amount remaining the same.

E. Bicycle Program
This Program remains unchanged.

F.Transportation Systems Operations and Management Program
This Program remains unchanged.

G. Sound Barrier Program
This Program has an allocation of $10 million for projects.

H. Pavement Management Program
This Program has an allocation of $310 million for projects.

I. Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program
This Program has an allocation of $37.4 million.  Staff will develope a project list at a later date and the project list will be going into the Plan as a lump sum amount.  Staff will have a Call for Projects, develop a list, and present the list to Committee and the Board of Directors.

J. Landscape Restoration and Graffiti Removal Program
There are no funds identified for this Program.  Staff will continue to try to identify funds.

Mr. Augenstein noted that there will be a draft release of the VTP 2030 document in July 2004 with Board adoption in August 2004.

Between March and April 2004, staff has made minor modifications to the project list and mostly with the Highway Program.

Member de la Beaujardiere recommended that if there are shortfalls of funding, pavement management funding should be considered to help withthe burden of loss of revenue.

M/S/C (Simon/Thielges) to recommend formal review of the wording under Safety of the Highway Program Evaluation Criteria, Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement, by the Members of BPAC at the next update of the Criterion.

Member de la Beaujardiere recommended that at the next review of the Criteria, staff consider adding cost effectiveness per rider to the project criteria to the transit project prioritization criteria.

Member Simons requested clarification regarding effectiveness at completion or effectiveness at any point in phasing of the projects from Member de la Beaujardiere with regard to his recommendation because early phasing projects are extremely expensive versus fully built-up.  Member de la Beaujardiere clarified that the total costs are fully built up.

Chairperson Sullivan queried with regard to Highway Program Evaluation Criteria, Environmental Equity, and the type of evaluations made on highway projects.   Mr. Augenstein stated that all modes have been applied to the environmental equity.

Mr. Augenstein noted that the Pedestrian Guidelines will be mailed out to elected officials and city staff, available on CD, and available on VTA's webpage in a few months.

Celia Chung, Senior Transportation Planner and Staff Liaison, reported that the Countywide Bicycle Plan (Bike Plan) is part of the VTP 2030 List.   Ms. Chung noted that the Tier 1 Project List is ongoing and staff is requesting the Committee assist in determining the Tier 2 list.

Staff is updating the Tier 2 List to make sure it is included into the VTP 2030 and the RTP to qualify for part of the $200 million MTC is setting aside for the Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Program.  Based on the population, it is expected that Santa Clara County will receive 25 percent of the $200 million, which would equal $50 million over the next 25-years.   Staff recommended updating Tier 2 projects, which was last adopted in 2000 when the Countywide Bike Plan was adopted, and Sent a Call for projects to all of the cities staff.  VTA staff received $69 million in projects from the cities and County.  Staff attempted prioritizing the projects based on previously adopted evaluation criteria.  Staff is emphasizing connectivity and regional significance since the expected funding is going to be a regional program.

Ms. Chung stated that 30 projects were submitted and placed into four categories:                                    

1.             Recommended For Inclusion in Tier 2
Ten projects were placed in this category.

2.                  To Be Included in the VTP 2030 Pedestrian/Livable Communities Program
Five bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing projects totaling $29 million were placed in this category.   Staff is recommending that the projects be split-listed, meaning half would come from the program allocation area and the other half would come form the VTP 2030 Pedestrian Program area. 

Ms. Chung noted that the VTP 2030 Pedestrian Program is to be developed later this year so this is basically a placeholder. 

3.                  Recommended for Inclusion in Tier 3 Instead of Tier 2 
There are three projects that are not recommended to be included in Tier 2 in this category.   The projects will added into the Tier 3 because they are small and one is being recommended to go back to Tier 1 Projects. 

4.             To Be Determined By BPAC
Twelve projects adding up to approximately $19 million were placed in this category.   If staffs recommendation in the other three categories is accepted, there is $19 million worth of projects that needs to get reduced to $11 million.    The projects in this category are bike trail projects, which are more easily funded because they can be built in segments and still be useful projects.  The other option is to set the target for Tier 2 at $69 million, which makes it harder to fit into the financial constraint portion of VTP 2030 and the RTP.

Member Stallman queried if Project #23, Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso-Highway 880) could have everything but blacktop as Phase 1 and blacktop as Phase 2 in order to remove barriers and not have such a high dollar amount.   Ms. Chung responded that it is possible but staff was considering a more completed project that will meet the Bicycle/Pedestrian Guideline Standards as well as Class 1 Trail Standards that were set by the Santa Clara County Parks Standards.

Mr. Brazil advised that the City of San Jose has submitted five projects, which is in the Proposed Tier 2 Projects and Allocations Category.   The following three projects provide important County improvements: Los Gatos Creek Trail will connect to the City of Jose as well as to the City of Los Gatos, and the City of Campbell, Coyote Creek Trail Project will connect to the City of Milpitas, and Guadalupe Rail Project will connect to the City of Santa Clara.   The three projects will also provide links to transit whether light rail, Caltrain, or bus stops and are either on or adjacent to bicycle lanes.  Mr. Brazil requested that BPAC consider the five City of San Jose projects.

Member Riffle queried what the City of San Joses recommendation would be between #22, Coyote Creek Trail (Highway 237/Bay Trail Story/Keyes) and #23, Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso-Highway 880).   Mr. Brazil responded that the City Councils highest priority is #22.

Member Jensen: recommended #1 Campbell Avenue Bridge Widening over Los Gatos Creek be kept on the Project List.

Member Simons queried as to the process, if projects would be chosen from each of the categories as a whole.   Member Sullivan responded that the object is to reassign some of the projects to get the total cost down to $59 million.

Member Anderson queried if there is an extra stigma if a project is dropped from Tier 2 and queried how easy it will be for dropped projects to be added back onto the List. Ms. Chung responded that there is no stigma but being a Tier 2 project makes it eligible for funds at a regional level and there are some sources beyond the regional level that are available.

Member Anderson queried when the Tier 1 is scheduled to be reviewed.   Ms. Chung responded that the List is scheduled for review fall 2004.   Mr. Anderson queried if a project is not on the Tier 2 List if it is harder for it be put up to a Tier 1 project.  Ms. Chung responded no because projects are based on projects readiness.

Member Eltgroth stated that if one of the projects from the City of Morgan Hill has to be dropped he would recommend #13, West Little Llagas Creek Trail.

Member Reisinger recommended #9, Berryessa Creek Trail (Reach 3) remain on the Tier 2 List.

Member Simons recommended that both projects from the City of Sunnyvale remain on the list, #28, Sunnyvale East Draining Trail (JWC Greenway Tasman) and #30, Evelyn Avenue Bike Lanes (Sunnyvale Avenue to Reed Avenue).   Chairperson Sullivan queried as to the location of the East Drainage Trail.   Member Simons responded that it is the City of Sunnvyales only bicycle trail connecting to Tasman, Downtown Sunnyvale and the City of Mountain View.

Member Stallman recommended that #4, Foothill/Loyola Structural Improvements in Los Altos be removed from the Project List.   Ms. Chung advised that the County and the Local Streets and Roads Program submitted the project but the County is having problems with their funding of 20 percent.  Ms. Chung noted that $8 million will come from Local Streets and $2 million from the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP).

Member Stallman queried with regard to #16, Bike/Pedestrian grade-separated crossing of Highway 101 at San Antonio (year-round) if there are any other projects in that Interchange that could complete the project.   Ms. Chung responded there are no specific improvements for that stretch of the freeway on   Highway   101.   Member Jensen stated that although there is some conceptual planning with the County of San Mateo, there is nothing concrete.

Member Stallman queried which would be a better project to drop, #17, Bicycle Boulevard/Lanes Network or a pedestrian overcrossing for $6 million.   Mr. Stallman noted that if the $6 million project was dropped then there would not be the concern of dropping a lot of other projects.

Member Stallman noted that the Water District has 17 years of $1 million per year funding that has to be spent on trails along creeks and queried if the projects in the To Be Determined by the BPAC Category along the creeks have had the funding from the Water District factored in.   Ms. Chung responded that as a whole, the projects have not had the Water Districts funding factored in but would expect the cities and County to apply to the Water District to fund the local match portion for new projects.   Ms. Chung noted that the Water District, which controls the funds, may also have a different set of criteria.  Member Stallman stated that the cities made applications for funding August 2003, the evaluation has been completed, and a list of projects is available that shows the amount of funding available.  Ms. Chung reminded Member Stallman that the Tier 2 Project List is only a planning document over a 2 to 3 year period and the Water District only has a programming document that will only give out a certain amount of funding per cycle and do not have their funding projected over the 25-year period of whatever period the $17 million is in.

Member Thielges stated that the City of San Joses projects, which are listed are all high quality, add facilities where none exist, and close gaps in cross-county corridor.  Member Thielges recommended moving #22, Coyote Creek Trail (Highway 237/Bay Trail Story/Keyes) and #23, Guadalupe River Trail (Alviso Highway 880) from To Be Determined By BPAC Category to Recommended for Inclusion in Tier 2 Category, and requested the Committee Members consider the fairness of allocating funds.

Member Muniz expressed concern that there were no projects from the City of Gilroy mentioned in the List and stated that city staff advised him that projects were submitted in February 2004.   Ms. Chung stated that although she did not see any projects submitted from the City of Gilroy, she would follow through with city staff and Member Muniz.

Member Walton recommended staff reduce each list by 25 percent to achieve the $11 million reduction.

Ms. Chung explained that projects in the To Be Determined by BPAC category, not included in Tier 2 will go to Tier 3 by default.

Member Jensen queried if by reducing each list by 25 percent if ribbon cutting can be increased and also queried what is the best way to get the most projects built.

Member Simons advised that Tier 1 projects should be completed before creating Tier 2 and Tier 3 Lists. Mr. Simons recommended all of the projects be left on the list but not prioritize the dollar amounts. 

Member Eltgroth queried if a Tier 2 project can move faster than a Tier 1 project how it affect funding as Tier 2 will be in the RTP list and eligible for funding from MTC.   Member Eltgroth also queried if the amount of funding shown in the RTP will be affected.   Ms. Chung responded that staff has been grappling with that idea and in theory projects are financially constrained and projects should be 80 percent funded and reminded the Committee that is a planning document that will not be very strictly enforced.

Member Simons queried if cities have time limits in which to get their projects started before being dropped of Tier 1.   Ms. Chung responded that the time to drop projects will be in fall 2004 when Tier 1 is reviewed.

M/S/C (Stallman/Walton) to recommend for inclusion, dropping Palo Alto Bicycle Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing of Highway 101 and San Antonio, Sunnyvale Train Station north side access, and Palo Alto Stanford Research Bicycle Lanes. 

Member Stallman advised that dropping the three projects, would achieve being able to recommend everything in the To Be Determined by BPAC category.

Member Riffle recommended the representatives from the cities who will have their projects dropped give their opinion.

Member de la Beaujardiere stated that although he did not receive feedback for the entire Tier 2 List, the City of Palo Altos BAC did state that #17, Bicycle Boulevard Lanes Network is a higher priority than #13, Stanford Research Park Bike Lanes.  Member de la Beaujardiere stated that in his opinion the #17, Bicycle Boulevard Lanes would also be of higher priority than #16, Bike/Pedestrian grade-separated crossing of Highway 101 at San Antonio (year round).   Member de la Beaujardiere noted that in theory he would be supporting the motion based on input from the Committee.

Member Simons recommended that #29, Sunnyvale Train be removed from the Tier 2 List.

Member Chung stated that #29 is one of the five projects, which will be split listed with the Pedestrian Program and that if it is dropped from the Bike Program, it will be added to the Pedestrian Program.

Chairperson Sullivan recommended that #11, Highway 9 Bike Lanes (Saratoga-Los Gatos Blvd) should be moved to Tier 1 Project List and be made a priority because of the deaths that occurred in that area within the last six weeks.   Chairperson Sullivan noted that #11 could be built at a lower cost and could provide significant benefits.  Chairperson Sullivan also recommended a   re-evaluation of individual projects rather than dropping three projects for an $11 million savings.

Member Stallman accepted it as a friendly amendment to request value engineering on the projects for a cost estimate.

Chairperson Sullivan expressed concern that Member Stallmans motion could potentially drop three projects from the Tier 2 List and recommended reducing the scope on a number of projects. 

Member Simons expressed concern that trail projects tend to be able to find funding because they can be done incrementally but when it comes to concrete and other expensive safety projects or connectivity, it is not as easy to find funding for them.

Member Anderson queried if a project is not from Tier 2 or Tier 3 if it is not eligible for funding.   Ms. Chung responded that if a project is neither from Tier 1 nor Tier 2 but is from Tier 3, it will not be eligible for regional funding.   Ms. Chung clarified that Tier 2 projects are eligible for funding outside of the regional funding program. 

Member Stallman stated he wants to include the idea of value engineering looking at the total dollar to see if some of the projects can be reduced in scope thereby enabling more projects to make the cut into Tier 2.

Chairperson Sullivan requested a Roll Call Vote.

M/S/C (Stallman/Walton) on a vote of 9 ayes, 6 noes and 0 abstentions (AndersonNo, de la BeaujardiereAye, Eltgroth-No, Jensen-No, Kobayashi-Aye, Manry-Aye, Muniz-Aye, Reisinger-No, Riffle-No, Simons-No, Stallman-Aye, Sullivan-Aye, Thielges-Aye, Wadler-Aye, Walton-Aye, and, Sullivan-Aye) to recommend cutting three projects if, upon further evaluation of the dollar amount, savings cannot be found amounting to the projects that were cut and that the Tier 2 Project List be brought back to the BPAC Committee to revisit at a later date.

Member Simons noted two areas of concern for Tier 2 Projects: 1) cities that have not had projects included and 2) potential projects from cities that did not meet the deadline for submitting paperwork.

Member Muniz queried how the issue of missing projects from the Tier 2 Project List with regard to the City of Gilroy is going be dealt with.   Ms. Chung responded she will be speaking to city staff and depending on the cost of the projects, if possible will add in the citys projects.

Member Eltgroth noted that there are projects from the City of Gilroy that have funding available but did not show up on the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Project List.   Ms. Chung responded that regional funding is not the only funding available there are other types available for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

M/S/C (Muniz/Simons) that on a vote of 14 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention, consideration, pending review of the application process, two projects from the City of Gilroy which are eligible for Tier 2 be included in the Tier 2 Project List.   Member Reisinger abstained.

Member Anderson stated that if the Committee wants to make certain exceptions for projects in extenuating circumstances that will be fine, however, VTA has to have some rules and deadlines when cities should submit projects for review.

Member Simons recommended that value engineerings consider levels of quality that can be done on trail projects, whether it can or cannot be a concrete project.   Ms. Chung stated that the way of reducing costs on a trail project is usually not so much gravel versus concrete but rather more four miles of concrete versus a project of concrete.   Member Stallman noted that between State Route 237 and Gold Street, the Water District used fine grind on the surface of the levies.  Mr. Stallman also noted that blacktop is $100,000 per mile and maybe leaving blacktop off of the rest of the Guadalupe would save enough money to include City of Gilroys projects, City of Sunnyvales projects, and City of Palo Altos projects.  Member Eltgroth queried if blacktop is what the current Guidelines recommend.  Ms. Chung responded that the Guidelines recommend all-weather surfacing.

Member Riffle left the meeting at 8:36 p.m.

Member de la Beaujardiere added that #19, Stanford Research Bike Lanes probably has lowest priority for the City of Palo Alto.

Member Muniz queried where Member Stallman located the information regarding the $100,000 for the blacktop.   Member Stallman advised that the information can be located at the National Center for Bicycling and Walking as well as city staff.   Member Muniz queried if the recommended allocation figures actually factor in the best-known method such as best-cost figure.  Member Chung responded that cost figures is that column on the left of the list are the best known project cost figures, then Tier 2 request is for what staff is recommending to be allocated of the total project costs and its an estimate of  80 percent of the total project costs.

Ms. Chao also noted that the Project List is outlined in Attachment A, Santa Clara County 2004/05 TFCA 40% Program..

Member Stallman queried at to the impact of the Evelyn Bike Lane Project falling below the cut.   Ms. Chung replied that the Project would not receive funding.  Mr. Stallman queried as to the location of the bicycle lanes in the City of Mountain View.  Ms. Chao clarified that project limits for this Project is from Sunnyvale Avenue to Reed Avenue. 

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole reviewed and commented on the FY 2004/05 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund (TFCA 40%) Project Allocations.

Ms. Chao stated the Quality Monitoring Report is for period January to March 2004.  Ms Chao directed attention to the Progress Summary Sheets, Green Projects explaining that these are not at risk of losing funding, and some of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Projects will be deferred to a later fiscal year due to the state budget. 

Member Stallman queried as to the $3 million contribution from County of Santa Clara for a connector between I-680/800 in Alameda County and if that funding can be taken back if it is not used in a timely manner.   Ms. Chao stated that the funding cannot be taken back because projects funded through a federal program have up to ten years to complete a project.

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for January March 2004 was received and filed.

Stephen Flynn, Senior Management Analyst, stated that the Joint Powers Agreement that governs the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that an audit be performed annually of the CMPs financial statements.   For Fiscal Year 2002-2003 (FY 2003-2003), an independent accounting firm of Macias, Gini & Company LLP (MGC) performed the audit and after reviewing all of the financial statements and examination on test basis, they provided an unqualified report, indicating that in their opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all materials, the respective financial position for the CMP as of June 30, 2003.

Member Stallman requested the status issue of CMPs rent being paid through Operations instead of by CMP.   Mr. Flynn responded CMP has historically always paid rent to the Transit Enterprise Fund as well as paying an overhead charge.

Member Stallman queried as to the difference between operating budget and capitol projects.   Mr. Flynn explained that an operating budget is good for a one-year period and at the end of the year the money expires and capitol project is to complete a specific endeavor no matter how long it takes and the money will remain for the life of the project.   Mr. Flynn noted that most of what CMP does is on operating basis but transit is usually capitol projects.

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, there being no objection, the Congestion Management Program Financial Audit, Fiscal Year 2002-03 was received and filed.

Mr. Flynn reported that the Draft Work Program and Amended Budget is for FY 04-05 VTA.   June 2004, the Board of Directors approved the CMP Budget for two years however, due to significant changes, which have occurred, staff has reviewed the budget for FY 05 and minor adjustments were made. 

Mr. Flynn noted that the Draft Work Program states all that CMP will be accomplishing during 2005.   Mr. Flynn referenced the six bullet points on Page 3 of the Memorandum, which outline the items that CMP will be either completing or commencing in 2004, such as the completion of VTP 2030, annual monitoring and performance report, 2005 Congestion Management Program, and completing the four highway corridor studies and the three gateway studies.

Mr. Flynn noted that a draft report for comment will be out in April, May, and August 2004.   Completion of the Gateway Studies is anticipated to be in six months.

On order of Chairperson Sullivan, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the FY 04-05 Congestion Management Program Draft Work Program and Amended Budget.

Mr. Flynn reported that March 2004 the Board of Directors approved the modification of the BPAC Bylaws; one of the modifications was the change of term of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson to commence the term at the beginning of the year.   Due to that modification, the terms of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson would expire in June 2004, which would leave a six-month gap to fill.  Staff recommended a one-time extension the Committee vote to extend the current Chairperson and Vice Chairperson term through the end of 2004.

M/S/C (Resinger/Walton) to approve the Temporary Extension of Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Terms.

Member Simons, City of Sunnyvale, reported that the City moved forward on design for the Bernardo Underpass, the scope will be more then required by VTA, and will be more done by the end of the project which I believe has already been funded.

Member Anderson, City of Mountain View, stated that the City of Sunnyvale is in the midst of a study of Permanente Creek/101 overcrossing south of Rengstorff Avenue, which is being funded by the City.   If the project is considered, it will be funded outside of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs. 

Member Walton, City of Cupertino, stated that per the request he made at the March 10, 2004 BPAC Meeting, he has received information on a joint trail between cyclists and pedestrians but has not had a chance to compose the information and forward to Ms. Chung.   Member Walton requested Ms. Chung forward the information Committee Members for review.

Member Simons left the meeting at 8:56 p.m.

Member Reisinger, City of Milpitas, reported that on March 17, 2004, he attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for the I-880/Dixon Landing Overpass.

Member de La Beaujardiere, City of Palo Alto, stated he will be distributing Bike to Word Day posters and if Committee Members are interested in posters they can send him a request by e-mail and he will mail them out the last week of April 2004.

Ms. Chung reported that some of the funding received from MTC for Bike to Work Day will be used for printing posters and the posters will be displayed around the County of Santa Clara before the actual Bike to Work.   Street banners will be available directly from MTC.

Member Kobayashi, County of Santa Clara, reported that a number of intersections on Foothill Expressway are being modified with deflectors, which have not been activated.   He noted that the green signal time is eight seconds and request of the yellow and red light about three or four seconds more.

Chairperson Sullivan, City of Santa Clara, reported that he has received a revised plan from the consultants working on making bicycle improvements to the De la Cruz Overpass between Coleman Avenue and Alviso Street.   The Plan does not seem to have any significant revisions.  Mr. Sullivan noted that the City of Santa Clara will have an Energizer Station at City Hall.

On order of Chairperson Sullivan,there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

NOTE:  M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICTED THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.