CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by
Chairperson Jensen in Room B-104, VTA, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

 ROLL CALL

Members Present                   Members Present
Scott Chan                                 David Simons
Christopher T. Hauge                Jim Stallman
Marc Jensen, Chairperson        John Sullivan
David Kobayashi                       Richard Swent
Bill Reisinger                              Herman Wadler
Joseph Walton
        

Members Absent                   Members Absent   
John Carpenter                      Thomas Muniz
William F. Manry                     Bart Thielges, Vice Chairperson

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Introductory Remarks from General Manager, Michael Burns

Mr. Burns stressed the importance of attending all committee meetings to introduce himself, to become acquainted with the committee members and they with him. 

Mr. Burns stated that this Committee, in particular, is one of special interest to him as he a bicyclist and pedestrian.  Mr. Burns noted that he worked closely with the bicycle coalition in the City of San Francisco and is looking forward to working with BPAC.

Mr. Burns provided background information naming various transportation agencies he was work with and the length of time.  Mr. Burns stated he has been at VTA for approximately six weeks and has been spending his time learning the system and the Organization. 

Mr. Burns stated that the one difference between VTA and the other agencies he has worked with is the extensive committee structure.  Mr. Burns stated that it will be of great value to VTA if VTA and the committees are working together and if open communication between committees, staff, the General Manager and the Board of Directors is available. 

Mr. Burns stated that it is owed to each other, in particular from VTA’s perspective, to communicate with the BPAC when the BPAC Members make recommendations and VTA does not implement them and provide the reason. 

Mr. Burns noted that for the structure to be effective, there is a need for good communication and that is his commitment to BPAC.
 
The following are the four general priorities Mr. Burns identified: 

1) Improving relationships
It is important to improve relationships with all of the stakeholders for transportation in the region and it is critical to VTA to be a more relevant agency in the region.

2) Consider ways to build ridership
There are opportunities to consider such as smaller community bus operations and expansion of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations. 

Mr. Burns stated he will be relying on BPAC for input, particularly bicycle opportunities. 

Mr. Burns noted that he has observed, with regard to the structure of the system, that convenience is not one of the strong suits of about the root structure due to the way the structure was developed. 

3) Develop Strategy
It is important to develop a strategy to deal with financial stability of the Organization and avoid the peaks and valleys VTA has been subject to.  Mr. Burns acknowledged that difficult decisions have been made, which have shown a positive result in a financial perspective.

4)   Deliver on Capital Program
 Whether it is the 1996 Measure B Program, 2000 Measure A Program and/or the quarter-cent sales tax staff is anticipating being on the November 2006 ballot to deliver on all of the programs in the 2000 Measure A Program accounting for the downturn in the economy and the impact the revenues originally projected for 2000.

Member Simons expressed concern regarding Brown Act Requirements, which only allow action to be taken on items listed in the agenda as an action item and cannot be taken on discussion or other non-action listed because it will allow more efficient communication to the Board of Directors.  Mr. Burns assured Member Simons that any comments made as a Committee or individuals gets transmitted to the Board.  There are legal requirements around taking action on things that have not been agendized.

Committee Staff Report. 

• Project Design Review

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer reported that the River Oaks Bridge has been shipped in five pieces and is now being reconstructed.  Over the next week or two the bridge will be lifted in place onto the connections across the creek.  It is expected the bridge will be completed in approximately two months. 

Ms. Gonot informed the BPAC that it is staff’s goal to get the bridge up and crane out of the creek bed before the rainy season starts.

Michelle DeRobertis, Senior Transportation Planner and Staff Liaison, noted that there are no projects at least 35 percent under design.

Ms. DeRobertis provided an update on the City of Saratoga DeAnza Trail stating that the City Council approved the Design Option #3 which is a 12 foot wide decomposed granite trail up to the PG&E Towers wherein it will narrow down to a five foot wide trail.

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Jensen reported that he attended the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ Legislative Committee Meeting and requested that the Legislative Committee provide any proposed changes to the BPAC.  County staff was adamant that they did not have to bring any changes to the BPAC but were directed by the Board of Supervisors to provide the proposed changes.

CONSENT AGENDA

(Removed from Consent Agenda and Moved to the Regular Agenda.)

Approve Minutes of September 7, 2005.

M/S/C (Stallman/Swent) to remove the Minutes from the Consent Agenda and placed under the Regular Agenda.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July to September 2005.

M/S/C (Reisinger/Swent) to approve the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July to September 2005.

REGULAR AGENDA

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Minutes of September 7, 2005

Member Sullivan requested the Minutes reflect that he voted in favor of rejecting the draft policy on Agenda Item #6., Draft Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways.

Member Swent requested the spelling of Szoboszlax be changed to Szoboszlay throughout the Minutes.

M/S/C (Reisinger/Walton) to approve the Minutes of September 7, 2005, as amended.

Recommended VTA Quarter-Cent Sales Tax Scenario

Ms. Gonot stated that this item will be provided to the Board Members at the November 3, 2005 Meeting along with the comments received from the five Advisory Committees.

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, provided background information stating that staff has been trying to grapple with the difficulties that have been presented as a downturn of the economy. 

In the case of an organization like VTA where sales tax revenue is a lifeblood both from an operating perspective and a capital perspective, the Board of Directors has been put in a difficult position of making some challenging choices such as dealing with the dramatic drop in sales tax revenues experienced over the past several years.

Mr. Evans explained due to the magnitude of the downturn of the economy the half-cent sales tax in Fiscal Year 2001 generated approximately $183 million.  Fiscal Year 2002 the figure was down to $135 million and to date it is approximately $145 million. 

Initially the Board of Directors grappled with the operating side of the equation and now there is some stability, the Board of Directors is now shifting its attention to the capital side, the 2000 Measure A Program.  

In 2000 when that program was put together and appeared on ballot and in                   November 2000 voters took a look at it and approved the measure by more than 70%, VTA estimated that the half-cent sales tax, which was the funding source for that program over a 30-year period, would generate about $6 billion. 

Shortly after the program was approved the economy took a downturn and the estimated revenue the program, over a 30-year period, is now in the neighborhood of $4.4 billion.  Mr. Evans pointed out that in essence $1.6 billion was taken away from the Program. 

The VTA Board came to the realization that if we were going to be able to deliver all of the projects in the Program new revenue sources would have to be considered otherwise the Board would be put in very untenable position and would then have to determine which projects would be cut from the Program. With that in mind, the Board of Directors directed staff to begin considering different types of scenarios for generating additional revenue.  

After considering various funding sources, staff came to the conclusion that the most viable was the sales tax.  Staff has, in the course of a two year period, presented to the Board of Directors various half-cent sales tax scenarios, three-eight sales tax scenarios and quarter-cent sales tax scenarios is a way to complete all of the projects in the 2000 Measure A Program.

In June 2005 the Board of Directors began to coalesce around a quarter cent sales tax scenario and instructed staff to present a couple of the scenarios to them.   At the September 16, 2005 Board Workshop three quarter-cent sales tax scenarios were presented to the Board of Directors and staff was advised to combine two of the scenarios into one and present them to the Board of Directors as a staff recommendation.

When staff combined both of the scenarios staff developed a program, which was oversubscribed, meaning it ran a negative balance.

Mr. Evans explained that this is not the first time Santa Clara County has been faced with a situation where the voters approve a sales tax measure and then the economy takes a downturn such as with the 1984 Measure A Program and the 1996 Measure B Transportation Improvement Program.

 Mr. Evans described the concept of Initial Program and Completion Program stating that under the Initial Program projects are included that can be built based on the current estimates of revenue expenditures.  The Completion Program are those project that cannot be built right now, but are in the program.  In the case of the 1996 Measure B Program and 1984 Measure A Program there will be revenue sources which present themselves.  As the program and circumstances change there will be opportunities to move projects that are in Completion Program up into the Initial Program.   That is what you saw happen with the 1996 Program where for example, the Highway 87 Project was originally in the completion program and all of the sudden the California Transportation Commission (CTC) had statutory authority to issue what are called GARVEE Bonds. That provided us an opportunity to move that project into the initial program. The economy showed some signs of turning around, sales tax revenues looked a little better, that allowed VTA and the County to move some of the projects related to Highway 17 and Highway 152 from the completion program into the initial program.

Mr. Evans referenced Attachment 1, entitled VTA 2000 Measure A Transit Program VTA Scenario - October 2005, pointing out two categories, Initial Program Category and Completion Program Decision Pending Category that puts into graph form the concept.

Mr. Evans stated the VTA Scenario includes BART in the Initial Program being constructed no later than 2018 and also include in the Initial Program light rail in East San Jose being completed in 2018.  

Mr. Evans advised that with regard to Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, staff is still going through the process of selecting a preferred transit mode as well as the environmental process.  Once the environmental process has been completed, staff will bring to the Board to Directors a preferred strategy for this Corridor.   Once there is a preferred transit mode available for this corridor the Board can consider whether this project can be moved up into the Initial Program. 

Mr. Evans noted that there are three line items dealing with Caltrain, Caltrain Service Upgrades, Caltrain South County Improvements, and Caltrain Electrification and in the case of Caltrain Service Upgrades in South County improvements, once the Board of Directors adopt a scenario staff will embark upon a process to identify what specific program of projects would be for those line items.   Once the scenario is approved staff can work with transportation stakeholders to identify specific program of projects for those two line items.

Mr. Evans referenced Dumbarton Rail, upgrade to the Altamont Commuter Express, light rail extension to Vasona, Phase II, three Bus Rapid Transit  (BRT) Projects along Line 22, Monterey Highway and along Stevens Creek, new project is the BRT Project in Sunnyvale/Cupertino, Airport People Mover, Pavement Management, County Expressways & Bicycle/Pedestrian, Increase Service From 12.4 percent to 24 percent, Line 32, Increase Senior/Disabled Programs, a new program for seniors and disabled transportation needs. 

On order of Chairperson Jensen, their being no objection, the Committee reviewed and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding the proposed VTA Scenario for the 2000 Measure A Transit Program.

County Bicycle Signal Timing Evaluation Study

 Masoud Akbarzadeh, Traffic Engineering and Operations, Santa Clara County Roads & Airport Department, provided a handout entitled County of Santa Clara Signal Timing Evaluation Draft Report.

Mr. Akbarzadeh provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Santa Clara County Bicycle Signal Timing Study highlighting the following:

1) Background of Phase 1 & 2 – 2003 & 2004

In 2003 and 2004 the County of Santa Clara applied for funding from Bicycle Transportation Account Program and was approved.  As a result, bicycle detector loops were installed in 20 intersections throughout Santa Clara County.

2)   20 Expressway Intersections with Bicycle Detector Loops on Cross Streets

 Discusses the intersections studied and the intersection where bicycle loops were installed. 

3)  Typical Bicycle Detector Loops Installation

 Diagrams were displayed.

4) Typical Bicycle Detector Loop & Marking Layout

The detector loop is approximately 1.5 feet wide diamond shape with five rounds of wires looping through connecting to signal cabinet.  This allows the bicycles to be identified as the mode.  The detector loops are being marked with standard Caltrans symbols.

5) Typical Bicycle Detection Locations & Markings at Expressway Intersections

The Bicycle Accommodations Guidelines developed in 1993 states which bicycle loops should be sensitive for bicycles.

6) Results of the Different between Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
  
Bicycles are different from motor vehicles and have different needs and once the loops were installed there was a need for special traffic signal timing to accommodate bicycles. 

The County applied to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for Traffic Engineering Technical Assistance Program (TETAP) funding which were granted in 2005 for consultant services for a study.

7) Goals 

The goals of the study were to explore ideas and develop consistent strategies for improving the operation and safety of bicyclist and improve existing timing plans to better accommodate bicycle movements.

8) Study Scope

The scope of the study indicated research in subject areas that includes bicycle/bicyclists characterizes and other design patterns, field reviews of intersections with and without existing bicycle detections, thorough evaluation and analysis of signal timing plans to accommodate bicycles, and timing plans.

9) Minimum Green Time

The recommended minimum green time was calculated for the study intersections and the assumptions included six feet is the typical length of a bicycle, acceleration for an adult is typically 1.5 feet, reaction time is typically one second, and bicycle speed is eight miles per hour.

10) All-Red Clearance Times

Manual to Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTCD) states that no more than six seconds of all-red clearance times should be used, typically, all-red times could be in the one to three second range, and higher all-red times have been shown to increase running of red lights.

11) Recommendations

Recommendations include installing bicycle loops where warranted, adjusting minimum green time to accommodate the standing start bicycles, existing yellow time is sufficient to accommodate bicycle movements, and increase all-red time where feasible to accommodate rolling start bicycles.

Member Swent expressed concern with the recommendation for yellow time because it is not sufficient time.

Member Swent recommended the countdown idea for bicycle at pedestrians like the kind used for pedestrians at crosswalks.

Chairperson Jensen queried as to the funding availability for the countdowns for bicycles.  Mr. Akbarzadeh responded at this time there is none available but he will keep looking for funding sources.  Chairperson Jensen if grant applications are considered, the BPAC will write letters of supports.

Mr. Akbarzadeh advised that the report will be posted on the website at www.CountyRoads.org as soon as it becomes available and if further information is needed, Mr. Akbarzadeh can be reached at (408) 494-1336.

On order of Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the County Bicycle Signal Timing Evaluation Study was received.

Subcommittee Report-Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways

Chairperson Jensen reported that the Subcommittee, which consisted of himself, Members Chan, Kobayashi, Swent, Wadler, and Interested Citizen Mr. Szoboszlay met with Dan Collen, Director of Infrastructure Development, County of Santa Clara, to review and discuss language to the Draft Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County.

On order of Chairperson Jensen, there being no objection, the Subcommittee Report-Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways was received.

Draft Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways

Mr. Collen reported that the Draft Policy incorporated in Agenda Item #11., Draft Policy for Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways, contains considerable editing comments, which were recorded in the Minutes from the BPAC Meeting of September 7, 2005, as well as comments from the County Roads Commission. 

Chairperson Jensen expressed concern regarding wider versus narrow shoulder ban on pedestrians.

Chairperson Jensen stated it is important to meet the Federal Guidelines, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidelines, and American with Disability Act (ADA) Guidelines but does not want the Draft Policy to lock bicycles and pedestrians behind walls and cut off from access to streets.

Mr. Collen stated there are no plans to build new expressways. 

Chairperson Jensen expressed concern that if turning lanes are added there is a need to   meet ADA Guidelines, if federal funding is received there is a need to meet federal code and if receiving state funding state requirements have to be met.

Chairperson Jensen thanked the Board of Supervisor for the Expressway Study and stated the Study was great.

Chairperson Jensen noted that there is no reference to language in Draft Policy that ties us to Section 888, AASHTO Requirements or federal code or regulations and respects the County’s opinion that there are some dangerous spots but does not want to create more if there is language that bans pedestrians from pre-existing conditions from narrow shoulders.

Member Wadler expressed concern regarding the lack of mentioning Section 888.  Mr. Collen stated that generally the County does not want to refer to a code that does not apply to the County. 

Ms. DeRobertis advised Mr. Collen that if there is any legislation to review, VTA staff stated will be willing to do so. 

Chairperson Jensen expressed concern that the Draft Policy does not speak to the issue of banning connectivity.

Members Kobayashi and Stallman recommended referencing the Expressway Study as the baseline and require that it be implemented as part of any project during the project.

Chairperson Jensen clarified that the Expressway Study Executive Draft is not specific in terms of what to do about wide versus narrow shoulders.

Mr. Collen stated that with regard to the question of severing existing pathways, language does exist and can be more flexible to some extent as to how to word or reword without introducing a more or less irrelevant code. 

Chairperson Jensen also recommended referencing the Expressway Study as a baseline in the Bicycle and Pedestrian policy.   Member Kobayashi added there is a need to establish that there is some kind of baseline for the informal pathways.

Mr. Collen clarified that the BPAC requested the Expressway Planning Study reflect informal pathways.

Chairperson Jensen stated his proposal is that the County be give latitude with regard to narrow shoulders.   Mr. Collen stated he does not believe the County is prepared to say in one sweeping statement that the County is prepared to say that there should not be a ban on every wide shoulder because there may be considerations there beyond the width of the shoulder particularly because width of the shoulder changes as you move along the expressway.   Chairperson Jensen queried if objective criteria is available. 

Chairperson Jensen stated that the County has presented language that says moving forward you are going to ban pedestrians, turn these roads into freeways, severe connectivity and the language in the Draft Policy gives the County the loophole to do so.   Chairperson Jensen there are objective standards, which can be used.

Chairperson Jensen requested language stating that any proposed ban is brought to the County’s pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee for review.

Member Walton queried if the Sub-committee would not consider meeting again and rescripting the proposal.

M/S/C (Wadler/Swent) to reject the Santa Clara County revised draft policy language for bicycle and pedestrian use of Santa Clara County expressways and approve the Subcommittee for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Use of Santa Clara County Expressways meet through e-mail to decide on proposed language for discussion and approval at the November 9, 2005 BPAC Meeting.

2005 Congestion Management Program

Chairperson Jensen expressed concern regarding Page E-2, Item 2, did not mention Senate Bill 1636 (Figueroa) Congestion Management: Transportation: Congestion Management Programs.  Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning Manger, responded that to date there are not guidelines establishes with regard to the legislative changes to the statutes but that staff does intend to establish guidelines.  Mr. Augenstein stated that staff is in the process of updating the Deficiency Plan Guidelines and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.  Guidelines for the cities to use when they want to implement an infill opportunity zone will be included.  

M/S/C (Walton/Stallman)to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the 2005 Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) with the added of VTA tie in their information with the MTC bicycle and pedestrian count.

Announcements

Member Swent, City of Palo Alto, requested a report from County Staff regarding timing of signals on Oregon Expressway be provided at the November 9, 2005 meeting.

Member Walton, City of Cupertino, reported that construction on the Mary Avenue Bridge is underway.

Chairperson Jensen, Town of Los Gatos, introduced Committee Member   Christopher T. Hauge, City of Morgan Hill.  Member Hauge, City of Morgan Hill, stated that he is the new representative from the City of Morgan Hill, he has been riding bicycles recreationally and racing since he was 17 years of age and also commutes to work on his bicycle at times. 

Member Kobayashi, County of Santa Clara, requested the BPAC Members remind bicyclists in their areas to start wearing reflective clothing and using lights when it is dark.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Jensen,there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gilda M. Gozdanich, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

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