Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Wadler, Valley Transportation Authority, Auditorium, Building A, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Absent
Scott Chan
Christopher Hauge
Marc Jensen, Chairperson
David Kobayashi
Bill Reisinger

A quorum was present.

There were no Public Presentations.

Committee Staff Report

• Project Design Review

Michelle DeRobertis, Senior Transportation Planner, reported that Caltrans is considering commencing a Project Study Report for the US 101 conversion to a freeway project at the very southern end of the County of Santa Clara where US 101 is considered an expressway and goes into San Benito County.   Caltrans District 4 is managing one portion of the project and Caltrans District 5 will manage the other portion of the project.   Ms. DeRobertis stated she will try to make sure that Caltrans accommodates bicycles in the best manner possible.

Ms. DeRobertis stated she will provide periodic updates to the BPAC.

Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Wadler stated that Member Thielges’ recommendation regarding naming a bridge after Bill Bliss was not reflected in the Minutes of March 8, 2006 and requested he be given the credit for his request.

Chairperson Wadler stated that Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) held discussion regarding naming a bridge after Mr. Bliss.   Mr. Bliss’ family was contacted and they stated they are not insistent on a bridge being named for him as a trail is scheduled to be named in his honor.  The family recommended the bridge be named after someone actually involved in the construction or implementation of the bridge.  The SVBC  will be discussing the naming of a trail after Mr. Bliss at their meeting of March 9, 2006.  Chairperson Wadler stated he will provide a report as to the discussion held by the SVBC to the BPAC at their meeting of April 12, 2006.

CONSENT AGENDA

(Removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.)

Approve Minutes of March 8, 2006

(Removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.)

Receive and filed the Draft 2005 Monitoring and Conformance Report and Conformance Findings.

Scoring Criteria for Lifeline Transportation Projects

M/S/C (Stallman/Simons) to approve the Consent Agenda.

Third Cycle Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds for Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009

M/S/C (Stallman/Simons) to approve the Consent Agenda.

REGULAR AGENDA

Minutes of  February 8, 2006

Member Thielges referenced Agenda Item #8., Orientation Presentation from VTA Staff, noting that his query to staff regarding funding for both freeway and other transportation projects, how VTA balances the conflict with the sources of funding.   Mr. Thielges commented that improved freeways dissuade people from using transit between the two types of projects.  Member Thielges requested a response to his query.

Member Muniz referenced Page 13 of 13, Agenda Item #12., Announcements,  Paragraph three, and requested Class 1 be replaced with Class 2 and in Paragraph four Santa Teresa Road be replaced with Santa Teresa Boulevard.

Member Simons referenced page 10 of 13, Agenda Item #10, Update of the 2000 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan, paragraph three, clarifying his comment regarding utility cyclists being on the Project Study Advisory Committee (PSAC)  as well as a member of the public.

M/S/C (Stallman/Walton) to approve the Minutes of February 8, 2006, as amended.

Draft 2005 Monitoring and Conformance Report and Conformance Findings       

Member Stallman referenced Figure 4.9: 2005 LOS F Segments by Peak Period, located on Page 4-24, and queried how the peak period is designated, how much time it includes and what time span is represented by peak period.   Mr. Stallman further queried if the peak period is arbitrary, such 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., for the morning peak period.

Adam Burger, Transportation Planner I, responded that it depends how the flow of traffic is measured.   Mr. Burger advised that he can provide a more detailed response to Member Stallman by e-mail.

Member Stallman referenced a section of morning congestion on State Route 85 north of Interstate 280 that is constrained by outdated pedestrian overcrossing.   Member Stallman noted there is no project list as part of the Report and does not know what type of process is used to advance projects as far as the scoring criteria but that there may be some beneficial impacts to a number modes of traffic.  Mr. Stallman stated some of the areas could use improvement that would make the project score higher, such as improving pedestrian overcrossing.

Member Stallman pointed out that there are bus routes represented in the comparative travel times sections throughout the document and stated they are certainly welcomed.

Member Stallman referenced OD Pair 1:   Downtown Los Gatos to Moffett Park in Sunnyvale located on Page 6.3 stating it overlooks the existence of Bus Line 328 along Lawrence Expressway which should be included.

Chairperson Wadler expressed concern that the Report that measures automobile traffic has nothing to do with transporting people from Point A to Point B and that there is not interest shown about bicyclists or pedestrians.   Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning Manager, clarified that VTA does conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts even though Congestion Management Program statutes do not require them.  These counts supplement counts performed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

Member Muniz queried if the bicycle and pedestrian counts will be taken in South County.   Mr. Burger responded that expanding the count locations will have to be discussed in the future and will have to see what is feasible within the budget.   Mr. Burger stated it is important to make sure not to duplicate the counts that MTC takes.  Mr. Augenstein commented that next time the Report is brought before the BPAC, staff will outline where the counts will be made and request input from the BPAC.

Member Muniz stated it appears that much of the data was collected from the months September to November and queried if there is a reason why.   Mr. Burger responded the reason those months are chosen is because it is during the time when schools are in session and fewer persons are on vacation so staff is provided with the best opportunity to look at a typical commute experience.

Member Carpenter stated that it would be nice to have other years to compare to.   Mr. Burger responded that the Bicycle Count Section is relatively new and staff will review the data to find trends. 

On order of Chairperson Wadler, there being no objection, the Draft 2005 Monitoring and Conformance Report and Conformance Findings was received and filed.

Local Program Reserve Funds for the City of Monte Sereno’s Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Program

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner III, stated that staff is requesting the BPAC to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve Programming $21,000 in Local Program Reserve Funds to the City of Monte Sereno for their Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Program. 

Mr. Sighamony noted that at the December 1, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board approved VTA programming approximately $41,000 in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds for roadway rehabilitations to the City of Monte Sereno.   Since the amount allocated to the City of Monte Sereno was lower than what was allocated to other cities, VTA has decided to allocate $41,000 in Local Program Reserve Funds to the City of Monte Sereno and allocate what was originally allotted to the City of Monte Sereno in STP funding to the City of Los Altos Hills for their Piedmont  Road Pavement Project.

Mr. Sighamony noted that an equal amount of STP funding will be redistributed among all of the cities and the County of Santa Clara in the next federal funding cycle for roadway rehabilitation.

Mr. Sighamony advised that Attachment A, Third Cycle STP Road Rehabilitation Project List, in Agenda Item #8., Third Cycle Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds for Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009, lists the STP funds allotted for road rehabilitation.    Mr. Sighamony noted that under the City of Monte Sereno, it does state that funds were transferred to the City of Los Altos Hills ($40,826).

M/S/C (Stallman/Thielges) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors program $41,000 in Local program Reserve Funds for the City of Monte Sereno’s Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Program; and authorize the General Manager to enter into a funding agreement with the City of Monte Sereno. 

 Member Walton queried makes the streets in the City of Monte Sereno ineligible.   Mr. Augenstein responded that all of them are not classified as collectors and above and Caltrans has certain requirements for certain streets to be considered collectors.

Application Procedures and Evaluation Criteria for Community Design and Transportation Program Capital Grants

Mr. Sighamony stated that staff is requesting that the BPAC review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the Evaluation Criteria and Procedures for selecting projects and awarding Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program Capital Grants.

Mr. Sighamony reported that in the fall of 2002 the VTA Board of Directors adopted the CDT Program as its primary program for integrating transportation and land use.   During the development the Board of Directors requested staff establish financial assistance to implement concepts of the CDT Program.

Mr. Sighamony stated there are $8.8 million currently available for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2007/2008. Transportation Enhancements (TE) and Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds will be programmed for this purpose. 

Mr. Sighamony also stated that all of the criteria and evaluation procedures were developed with the assistance of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and were set up in accordance with MTC’s Transportation for Livable Community (TLC) Program.

Mr. Sighamony noted that eligible projects are all projects that are located in a core corridor or station area as defined by VTA’s CDT Program. 

Mr. Sighamony referenced Attachment B, which is a map of the core areas.

Mr. Sighamony referenced Attachment A, VTA Community Design & Transportation Program Capital Grant Program Evaluation Criteria and Procedures and outlined the projects being considered as follows:   pedestrian projects, streetscape and corridor enhancements, and pedestrian-oriented streets or alley, plazas, paseos & pocket parks related to transit facilities or multimodal streets.

Mr. Sighamony reported that 10 points will be awarded for project scope, 20 points for project benefit, 20 points for transportation/land use development, and 20 points for community connectivity and access. 

Mr. Sighamony stated once the Board of Directors approves the set criteria VTA will issue a call for projects in late spring or early summer 2006 and applicants will submit projects applications to VTA and a scoring committee will score the applications.   Once the Board of Directors approves the final projects, the grant recipients will enter into an agreement with VTA to commence the project.

Staff is considering holding a workshop for the agencies interested in applying for the grants to walk through the process.

Member Simons referenced Attachment A, VTA Community Design & Transportation Program Capital Grant Program Evaluation Criteria and Procedures, Eligible Projects, “No projects must be Bike  Only”, requesting that if a project is determined to impact existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities that Criteria Procedures reflect this with lower point scores on alternatives for mitigation.  

Member Manry referenced Attachment B, Map of VTA Cores, Corridors and Station Areas stating that it appears as though the City of Monte Sereno does not have any cores, corridor, or station areas in the map and queried if that effectively removes the City of Monte Sereno from being considered for funding.  Mr. Sighamony responded that if the City of Monte Sereno provides an application it will not be thrown out.  Mr. Augenstein stated that since the City of Monte Sereno opted to not establish a core or corridor area, they would not be eligible to apply; adding however, that VTA is willing to work with them to complete that process to allow the city to apply for CDT funds. 

Member Carpenter advised that smaller jurisdictions could get together with neighboring jurisdictions and that would help with the scoring and could then receive funding.   Mr. Augenstein noted there are points for collaborative efforts.

Chairperson Wadler queried how the BPAC will know if recommendations are incorporated into the Program. Chairperson Wadler expressed concern that recommendations have been made from the BPAC to staff and BPAC does not know whether they have been followed through. 

Mr. Augenstein stated he thinks some of the recommendations can still be added, especially the recommendation regarding the addition of wording that no project shall be detrimental to existing conditions.    With regard to the alternatives to pedestrian routings Mr. Augenstein asked Member Simons to discuss wording with him offline.  Member Simons requested the changes be made before the document is presented to the Board of Directors for approval.

Mr. Augenstein explained to the BPAC that staff provides a list of recommendations received from Committee input to the Board of Directors advising those changes will be included in the final document. 

Member Walton queried if the programs in the process are being implemented when will VTA be asking for projects.   Mr. Augenstein responded it depends on when the Board of Directors approve the actual criteria, but most likely in a few months.

M/S/C (Simons/Walton) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the evaluation criteria and procedures for selecting projects awaiting Community Design and Transportation Program Capital Grants with the addition of language with regard to Attachment A, VTA Community Design & Transportation Program Capital Grant Program Evaluation Criteria and Procedures, Eligible Projects, “No projects must be Bike Only”, requesting that if a project is determined to impact existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities that Criteria Procedures reflect this with lower point scores on alternatives for mitigation.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funding for Almaden Expressway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Mr. Sighamony advised that staff is requesting that the BPAC review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the programming of $1.39 billion in CMAQ funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Almaden Expressway.

Mr. Sighamony reported that when the call for projects for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program in 2005, it was noted at the TFCA District level bicycle projects were not scoring very high.   To remedy that, staff exchanged the TFCA Program Manager Funds with CMAQ money. 

Mr. Sighmony stated that at the May 5, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting, the Board approved a $3.3 million funding exchange with MTC, wherein MTC allocated  $3.3 million in CMAQ money in return for TFCA money that then Board of Directors would program to projects in the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP).  The BEP projects selected for CMAQ must meet the following criteria:

• Request a minimum grant of $150,000;
• Provide at least 11.5 percent of local match;
• Complete a federal environmental document;
• Design and construct the project in accordance with VTA Bicycle and Techncial Guidelines;
• Obligate all CMAQ funds by May 30 of the year in which they are programmed, not later than 2008; and
• Meet all of the requirements of the MTC Regional Project Delivery Policy.

Mr. Sighamony reported that in FY 2005/2006 staff only found one project that was ready to move forward, which was Santa Clara County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements on Almaden Expressway between Ironwood and Koch in the City of San Jose.

Mr. Sighamony noted that the remaining $1.91 million will be programmed through a call for projects later in 2006.

M/S/C (Thielges/Walton) to review and recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the programming of $1.39 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Almaden Expressway.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Appointments for the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group

Mr. Augenstein stated that at the February 8, 2006 BPAC Meeting the idea of appointing members and one alternate for the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group from the BPAC was approved. Mr. Augenstein asked for four volunteers and one alternate with the caveat that the Group will meet five to eight times between now and December 2006.   Attendance and commitment by the Members is really important.

Member Simons recommended a utility cyclist, regardless of whether a BPAC Member or not if there is someone appropriate.   Mr. Augenstein clarified that the item before the BPAC is just for BPAC Members and it will be up to the Committee to welcome volunteers to serve on the Committee outside of the BPAC Membership.

Chairperson Wadler, Member Muniz and Member Carpenter volunteered to serve as Members of the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group, Member Simons volunteered to serve as an Alternate Member of the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group, and Member Simons recommended Kevin Jackson, City of Sunnyvale BPAC, to serve as a Member of the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group.

M/S/C Walton/Stallman to approve the following BPAC Members sit on the Bicycle Plan Update Working Group:  Chairperson Wadler, Member Muniz, Member Carpenter, Member Simons (Alternate,) and City of Sunnyvale BPAC Member Kevin Jackson.

Update of the 2000 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan Outline of Plan Update and Topics for Inclusion

Ms. DeRobertis referenced Attachment A, Draft Proposed Outline 2006 Countywide Bicycle Plan for the BPAC to review and provide input.

Ms. DeRobertis reported that the Bicycle Plan will:

• Revise and update information
• Consolidate in a single document then current bicycle policies, procedures and BEP projects
• Review and revise, if necessary, existing components of the plan and
• Develop new programs in response to new opportunities and countywide priorities.

Ms. DeRobertis referenced Attachment A, which is the outline for the Plan.

Ms. DeRobertis noted that the first Bicycle Plan focused on the cross-county corridors and the list of recommended projects were all on cross-county corridors.   The projects in the Bicycle Expenditure Plan were given extra points for being on a cross-county corridor and staff is recommended that staff consider potential funding and consider bicycle access to transit projects, look at railroad crossing and needed freeway overcrossing, or spots where there is knowledge that they need to be crossed.  

Ms. DeRobertis stated that the one thing that the Bicycle Expendtiure Plan does not have that other mode pieces do have in the VTP 2030 is the unconstrained list of projects.   Ms. DeRobertis also stated that it is staff’s hope to have an unconstrained list of projects and finally increase the policy issues, education, and safety programs. 

Member Stallman recommended the following addition to Section I.D. Physical Settings: legal issues and signage of ramps.

Member Stallman recommended the following addition to Section III.D. Support Facilities: ongoing bicycle rack request system.

Member Stallman stated it is important to be mindful to adjacent counties to the regional bicycle network.   Ms. DeRobertis recommended that Item II.C. Regional Trails, be changed to Regional Trails and Connections.

Member Muniz requested that during this update the need for cross-county corridors be expanded, particularly in South County.

Member Simons referenced I.B. Planning and Coordination and requested the review of, including bicycle and pedestrian issues on county and individual city road checklists when having facilities that are being changed or modified, be included.

Member Swent requested uniform route signing system for major cross county routes added under I.B. Planning and Coordination.

Member Muniz recommended undercrossing and overcrossings across Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks and drainage channels be added under II.E. Major Barriers Crossings.

Member Walton queried if Item III. A. Educational Programs implies that there would be funding for those projects that come to through VTA.   Ms. DeRobertis responded that at this time there is no funding available but it is important to identify the need.   Member Simons recommended VTA needs to pursue the Santa Clara Health Department funding, which is allocated yearly because VTA may carry more weight in acquiring some types of funding that would be for educational programs then if it was for an individual city or a non-profit organization.

Member Carpenter requested traffic controls that would help bicycles under certain circumstances be added to Item II. County-Significant Bicycle Capital Projects and Network.

Ms. DeRobertis stated retrofitting detectors could be eligible for VTA funding.

Member Muniz requested the addition of trail maps to Item III.A.5. Bike Maps.

Kevin Jackson, Interested Citizen, requested motorist education be included in Item III.A. Education Program.

Mr. Jackson referenced parking language in the Countywide Bicycle Plan that states employees are allowed to bring their bikes into their own office work areas is an effective way to provide Class 1 parking.   Mr. Jackson stated that office buildings are not designed to get bicycles in and out of, and he does not think parking in office work areas should be considered acceptable except in very special cases.   With regard to parking, whatever is put in the Guidelines as the recommended minimum as far as the developers are concerned, the minimum will become their maximum.

Mr. Jackson requested staff consider standards for the projects that will accommodate an average cyclist, such as sharrows. 

Member Wadler advised Mr. Jackson that sharrows is more of a city than county issue. 

Ms. DeRobertis referenced Attachment B, Draft Schedule 2006 Countywide Bicycle Plan Update, requesting BPAC’s comments regarding the public input schedule.   Ms. DeRobertis advised staff is recommending that instead of having separate public meetings that public input be heard under Public Presentations at the BPAC Meetings.

Member Simons recommended that if the public meeting is incorporated into a BPAC Meeting, that public input be at the front end of the meeting to accommodate the public. 

Member Simons expressed concern regarding the date of the March 2006 Meeting.  Ms. DeRobertis clarified that the next meeting will be April 2006 with the date to be determined.   Mr. Augenstein stated that public input may have to provided during the agenda item and not Public Presentation due to timing issue.

Chairperson Wadler noted he made an announcement to the Almaden Cycling and Touring Club (ACTC) that the update process is starting and that he will send e-mail them requesting comments as well as announcing when public meetings will be held.

On order of Chairperson Wadler, there being no objection, the Update of the  2000 Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan: Outline of Plan Update and Topics for Inclusion was reviewed.

2006 Update of the Bicycle Technical Guidelines

Ms. DeRobertis stated staff will be working at updating the Bicycle Technical Guidelines this year.   Ms. DeRobertis advised staff that the updates will include formatting, organizational, and editorial revisions to make the document easier to use.

Member Walter stated when the Bicycle Technical Guidelines were done, everyone thought it was a marvelous piece of work but the County Roads and Airport and is hopeful that this time they will be gathered into the fold so the Technical Guidelines time will be countywide this time around.  

Member Swent referenced bicycle detection technologies stating that it is difficult to know when they are detectors and when they are just cameras used for monitoring traffic and requested the detectors are marked so bicyclist will know the difference.

Member Stallman recommended adding a bicycle boulevard design feature to the Guidelines, as well as entry and exit points to and from trails, and architectural features that are friendly to bicycles.

Member Carpenter recommended adding bicycle symbols under Traffic Controls/Signals.

Member Muniz recommended adding angled parking to the Guidelines. 

Member Stallman recommended showing how parking pockets can be retrofitted because it would enable a jurisdiction to make room on a street for bicycle lanes and still retain parking. 

Member Wadler requested sharrows be added to the Guidelines.

Member Thielges stated that with regard to sharrows and signage, a solution is needed to communicate to cyclists and motorists that lanes are too narrow for cars and bicycles to be side by side and must ride single file through the section of the narrow road.

Member Carpenter referenced acceleration and deceleration lanes at freeway overpasses and requested maximum curve radius be specified.

Member Muniz stated he would like to see a statement in the Guidelines clarifying that county and state streets are covered by the Guidelines.

Member Simons stated that an example in the Bicycle Technical Guidelines that should be incorporated, as far as detail, is the addition diagrams of good and bad designs in areas locating bicycle lockers and ramps.   Mr. Simons expressed concern that the existing text is not specific enough that it excludes development from putting the racks in inappropriate locations. 

Member Stallman expressed concern that if the request to include the accommodation bicycles during construction is not made that it might be overlooked. 

Member Stallman advised that there must be a wealth of Best Practices photographs people could contribute to add content to the Guidelines.   Member Stallman stated it should be known upfront what constitutes a printable photograph.

On order of Chairperson Wadler, there being no objection, the 2006 Update of the Bicycle Technical Guidelines was reviewed.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Mr. Jackson referenced the February 8, 2006 BPAC Minutes wherein it says that  Board Chairperson Cindy Chavez is requesting that each Advisory Committee evaluate their communication experience and provide feedback. 

Mr. Jackson expressed concern regarding SB 1233 debacle and provided information on comparing legislative shenanigans with the roadway projects.   Mr. Jackson stressed the importance of BPAC’s input.  Mr. Jackson expressed concern regarding accountability from the people responsible for wrongdoings.

Announcements

Member Carpenter, City of Mountain View, reported that a housing project is being developed where a former shopping center was located on San Antonio and Central Expressway, and are working on a way of getting bicycles safely through the construction site.  Mr. Carpenter reported that a consultant has been hired to work on the Bicycle Boulevard.

Member Thielges, City of San Jose, reported that City of San Jose recently published a new Bicycle Plan.

Member Swent, City of Palo Alto, stated the construction site project Member Carpenter mentioned is on the border between the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto and presents a significant connector between the two cities. 

Member Walton, City of Cupertino, reported that Phase 2 of the Mary Avenue Bridge is due to commence summer 2006.

Member Sullivan, City of Santa Clara, reported that Santa Clara BAC will be meeting on March 22, 2006 at 4:00 p.m., Planning Department Conference Room,  City of Santa Clara Hall.  The issue involving the 1991 Resolution, which prohibited pedestrian use of parts of Lawrence and San Tomas Expressways, will be on the Agenda for discussion.

Member Stallman, City of Saratoga, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Trails Advisory Committee, are asking the Fire Marshall to augment the inventory of access points in the neighborhoods because fire access has been overlooked.

Member Muniz, City of Gilroy, reported the City of Gilroy BPAC completed review of the ADA Compliance request stops and forwarded to VTA Operations for review.     The BPAC has also review existing bikeways.

Chairperson Wadler, City of Campbell, reported their BPAC did not meet in February 2006 but will be meeting March 2006.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Wadler, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 7:44 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.