Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was called to order at 4:35 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Fletcher in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

ROLL CALL

Members Present

George Doorley
Chris Elias
Ellen Fletcher
Ray Hashimoto
Mas Minami
Gaye Morando
Connie Rogers
Diane Tripousis
Sarah Zimmerman
Elizabeth Zimmermann

Members Absent

Stephen C. Blaylock
Patricia Sausedo
Martin Schulter
Laura Stuchinsky

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

Minutes of May 7, 2003

The Committee of the Whole deferred approval of the May 7, 2003 minutes, pending the arrival of a quorum.

Summary Minutes of August 13, 2003

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Summary Minutes of August 13, 2003.

Summary Minutes of September 10, 2003

Vice Chairperson Fletcher suggested reflecting the answer to the inquiry on Item #4 of the Summary Minutes that there was no quorum because there were only eight members present in the August 13, 2003 meeting. 

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher,there being no objection, the Committee of the Whole received the Summary Minutes of September 10, 2003.

Committee Staff Report

Member Elias took his seat at 4:40 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Michael Evanhoe, Chief Congestion Management Officer, advised CAC of future VTA Board of Directors Workshops.   Mr. Evanhoe noted that preliminary discussions would commence on November and decisions will be made within the time frame of December 2003 until February 2004.  Mr. Evanhoe noted the major topics of discussion for the workshops: the financial scenarios for transit program, and the fund estimate for the VTP 2030 countywide plan.  

Mr. Evanhoe noted that the actual share of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) dollars would be determined when the California Transportation Commission (CTC) releases the document in December.   On federal dollars, he stated that the actual amount would be determined when the Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century  (TEA-21) is approved. 

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Committee Staff Report was received.

Minutes of May 7, 2003

M/S/C (Doorley/Rogers) to approve the Minutes of May 7, 2003.

Chairpersons Report

Vice Chairperson Fletcher informed the Committee that Chairperson Blaylock was not able to attend due to illness.

Member Tripousis took her seat at 4:45 p.m

Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for FY 2003-04

Member Tripousis reported that the Nominating Committee would nominate Chairperson Blaylock and Vice Chairperson Fletcher for FY 2003-04. She stated that Chairperson Blaylock notified her by e-mail that he is accepting the nomination for Chairperson for FY 2003-04.

Vice Chairperson Fletcher opened the nominations from the floor.

M/S/C (Tripousis/Hashimoto) to close the nominations and to re-elect Chairperson Blaylock and Vice Chairperson Fletcher for FY 2003-04.

Fare Policy

Scott Buhrer, Chief Financial Officer, stated that the Fare Policy is an accompanying recommendation to the farebox recovery rate increase recommendation of the 2002 Business Review Team (BRT) and the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee.  Mr. Buhrer explained that when the Board of Directors approved the biennial budget, they concurrently approved recommendation to increase the farebox recovery ratio from the current 12 percent to 20-25 percent within the next two to three years.  He noted that to be successful in the farebox recovery, staff will look into three elements in fraction form:  average fare per boarding multiplied by the boarding per hour of service as a numerator, and operating cost per hour of service as a denominator.

Mr. Buhrer noted that part of staffs Fare Policy recommendation is to formalize the fare relationship of the Fare Structures.   He briefly explained each of the recommendations, such as: making the adult cash fare as the base fare and determine others by reference to the adult cash fare; provide 50 percent discount to the adult cash fare for seniors and disabled; provide 25 percent discount to adult cash fares for youth; have the same number of multiples for both the day pass and monthly pass; impose a two times base fare premium for adult express fares; Eco Pass be priced to achieve an equivalent average fare per boarding in the adult fare category; regional fare coordination agreement should only give credit for a base of adult cash fare and pay premium when using premium service; establish additional pricing for additional types of fare media or special fare programs, and; establish limits to free fares for promotional purposes.

Member Tripousis queried on how much the increase in Eco Pass will be and expressed concern that larger employers might not subscribe to it because of the higher cost.   Mr. Buhrer replied that Eco Pass has to generate the average fare per boarding at a level that is comparable to adult fare to prevent the non-working population from carrying all the costs to reach the targeted fare recovery ratio.  He added that a survey has been conducted to determine the response of the employers regarding the cost increase of the Eco Pass program.

Member Elias inquired about what happens to the fares when elements such as energy and fuel costs fluctuate.   Mr. Buhrer replied that these items are anticipated in the budget and adjustments are made, if necessary, in the next budget cycle.  Mr. Buhrer emphasized that fuel and energy costs are significant but the main factor that affects the fare recovery ratio is employee wages and benefits.

Member Zimmerman queried if there will be a fare increase each year if the 20 percent farebox recovery goal is not met.   Mr. Buhrer replied that if the farebox recovery ratio does not reach 20 percent, fares would be evaluated as part of the budget assumption every year.   He adds that staff will then propose a fare increase for approval, conduct public meetings to get public input, and implement the fare increase in January of the next year.

Member Zimmerman expressed concern that fare increase negatively affects ridership. She suggested looking at ridership per type of transit to determine the appropriate increase per type of riders.    Member Zimmerman expressed concern that ridership is very low compared to other cities such as San Francisco and emphasized that ridership needs to be increased to have a higher fare recovery ratio.

Mr. Buhrer responded that increasing ridership per unit is a more important factor in achieving the targeted farebox recovery ratio.   He stated that there are major differences in land use patterns between San Francisco and Santa Clara County.  He noted that VTA has 328 square miles of service to cover compared to Munis 49 square miles.  Mr. Buhrer further added that San Francisco has a more centralized downtown business district compared to Santa Clara Countys multiple business districts.  Mr. Buhrer explained that these are the reasons why staff and Board of Directors believe that users need to share a greater percentage of the operation costs.  He noted that the rule of thumb for transit agency is that for every 10 percent price increase, 3 percent of the riders are lost.  However, he further explains, that these riders tend to come back within 3 12 months.   He stated that greater emphasis has to be given on farebox recovery as well as finding new revenue sources because of the staggering deficits that VTA is currently facing.

Member Zimmerman requested that a formal recommendation which will state that other alternatives will be considered aside from increasing fares, if the farebox recovery is less than 20 percent. 

Mr. Buhrer stated that currently, 12 percent of the operating costs are from the users of the system and 88 percent are from taxpayers.   He noted that there might be other alternatives but expressed concern that other alternatives might not be substantial to solve the financial crisis.

Member Elias stated that redesigning the marketing strategies might increase ridership.   He suggested exploring the possibility of giving monetary incentives to Marketing employees if they generate more riders.  He further suggested reprogramming the advertising program to get more advertising revenues.

Mr. Buhrer noted that staff is committed to increasing ridership.   However, he explained that the organization is in a great financial difficulty and to balance everything out, a fare increase has to be done. 

Vice Chairperson Fletcher stated that it is a daunting task to achieve the 20 percent farebox recovery ratio goal.   Vice Chairperson complimented Mr. Buhrer for the report that he presented.  

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Fare Policy was reviewed and commented.

American with Disabilities Act (ADA) New Eligibility Certification Screening Process Update

George Tacké, Accessible Services Manager, presented an update regarding the New Eligibility Certification.  Mr. Tacké stated that new eligibility certification process was established to obtain operational efficiency and reduce the cost per trip.  He noted that the present program truly ascertains if the person needs the service as defined by the ADA. 

Mr. Tacké explains that Orthopedic Hospital, the third party administrator, handles the eligibility certification from beginning to end.   To determine eligibility, Orthopedic Hospital uses a functional model where a series of questions are asked to determine the ability to use public transportation.  Mr. Tacké noted that if the applicant is determined able to use public transportation, the applicant would not be eligible to use Paratransit. 

Mr. Tacké noted that there were initial apprehensions and misunderstandings about the program but later on, the feedbacks were generally positive. Mr. Tacké noted that Orthopedic Hospital is meeting the performance standards.  Mr. Tacké stated that there will be another interview site in the future and also community based interview sites.  He added that there is an accessible services hotline and stated that most of the calls received were about information.

Member Rogers inquired about re-certification of existing members.  Mr. Tacké responded that the Paratransit broker sends out notices to people whose membership is about to expire.  Mr. Tacké noted that members who fail to respond will be given a grace period of 60 days.  He further explained that once certified, the participant would only renew the certification once every three years, through responding to the letter.

On the order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the New Eligibility Certification Screening Process Update was received.

  Member Doorley left his seat at 5:30 p.m.
Member Sarah Zimmerman left the meeting at 5:30 p.m., the quorum was lost, and the Committee of the Whole was declared.

Proposed Service Standards

Mike Aro, Service Planning and Operations Deputy Director, distributed handouts about the Draft Service Management Plan.  Mr. Aro stated that the Service Management Plan formalizes procedures and methods to design, develop, evaluate, modify, and manage existing service.  He noted that the Board of Directors adopted the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committees recommendation to review and update these guidelines and policy and codify them in light of the present financial situation.  Mr. Aro further explained that the Board of Directors also recommended that standards should address target and establish the minimum acceptable performance standards by route.

Mr. Aro noted that the draft document will be presented in the meeting and that the Committee will have the opportunity next month to discuss and give feedback.  He noted that the Service Management Plan would go to VTA Board of Directors in December 2003 for approval.

Member Doorley took his seat at 5:32 p.m. and the quorum was declared.

Mr. Aro stated that the Service Management Plan, has four parts:  Service Area/Network Design, Service Design Guidelines, Service Evaluation Policy, and Service Change Process. He noted that Service Area/Network Design focuses on the factors that influence network design as well as the different network designs that transit agencies have.  Mr. Aro noted that local geography, land use and development patterns, travel patterns, socio-economic characteristics, historical development of transit service, and agency goals are the factors that influence the design of transit network.  Mr. Aro provided examples for each type of network:  Radial, Grid, and Local Hub/Focal Point.  He noted that most transit agencies have some or all of these types of networks. 

Mr. Aro discussed VTAs service area characteristics.   Mr. Aro stated that VTAs service area is relatively low-density residential and commercial development, lacks a strong central business district, dispersed travel patterns, has a lot of free or low cost parking, high income levels, and high auto availability and ownership.

Mr. Aro noted that VTAs transit network operates the following:  a modified grid bus system, light rail, partner in regional and inter-city commuter rail service and regional bus express service, and Paratransit service.  Mr. Aro noted that routes are classified by purpose, namely: Primary Grid Routes, which runs on major and high density streets; Secondary Grid Routes, which are similar to Primary Grid Routes but runs on smaller streets; Neighborhood Feeder Routes, which brings in people to the transit centers; Limited Stop Routes, which runs on expressways; Express Routes, which runs on the freeways, and; Light Rail.

Mr. Aro noted that the second part of the Service Management Plan, the Service Design Guidelines, are made to develop and modify services, determine span of service and frequency, and establish vehicle loading guidelines.  Mr. Aro briefly discussed each of the elements of the Service Design Guidelines: Service Periods, Service Hours, Service Frequency, Vehicle Loading, Route Development, Bus Stops, and Geometric Design Considerations.

Mr. Aro stated that Service Evaluation Policy would be used to evaluate current services, to increase revenue per hour, decrease cost per hour, and to identify corrective actions for non-performing routes.  Mr. Aro noted routes are categorized into two categories for purposes of evaluation.  In evaluating Regular Routes, the performance measure is boardings per revenue vehicle hour, the standard is 75 percent of the average of all routes and, minimum acceptable standard is 15 boardings per revenue vehicle hour.  Mr. Aro illustrated an example of the Regular Route weekday performance. He noted that marketing opportunities and operational changes are explored to provide solutions to non-performing routes.  In evaluating Express Routes, the performance measure is the average peak load factor, acceptable standard is 60 percent of average load factor for commute express route, and the minimum acceptable standard is 50 percent of the average load factor for full day express route.  Mr. Aro noted that the first and last shift of the Express Route has the lowest ridership.

Mr. Aro noted that the Service Change Process involves process that are in compliance with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for public involvement, process that will solicit public and community participation, and a process that allow changes at the staff level.  Mr. Aro noted that VTA provides opportunities for participation such as working closely with local jurisdictions and sponsoring meetings that motivates public participation.  He further stated that staff identified the changes that need Board of Directors approval as well as changes that can be handled at staff level.

Vice Chairperson Fletcher requested that the Committee, due to time constraints, defer their comments about the Proposed Service Standards to the November 12, 2003 meeting.

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Proposed Service Standards was received.

FY 2003 Preliminary Annual Performance Report

Mr. Aro briefly discussed the Preliminary Annual Performance Report emphasizing that ridership is still down due to the economy.  Mr. Aro referred to the appendices included in the packet which compared the ridership statistics to the previous year.  Mr. Aro highlighted that cost for operation of the Paratransit has gone down and ridership of Paratransit has gone up.

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the FY 2003 Preliminary Annual Performance Report was received and filed.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July-September 2003

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for July September 2003 was received and filed.

CAC Workplan

Review of CAC Workplan was deferred to the November 12, 2003 meeting.

Announcements

There were no announcements.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Fletcher, there being no objection, the Committee Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Elaine F. Baltao, Board Assistant
Board of Directors

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