Committee for Transit Accessibility
Wednesday, April 7, 2004
1:00 PM
Auditorium - Building A
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
3331 North First Street
San Jose, California
Minutes
|
1. |
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA) was called to order at 1:04 p.m. by Chairperson Julian in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.
ROLL CALL
Members Present
Jeannette Bruntz
Linda Gallo
Sandra Gouveia
David Grant
Katie Heatley (Ex-Officio)
Marjorie Jensen
David Julian, Chairperson
Martin Lasich
Laura Michels
Aaron Morrow
Frederico S. Orillaneda
Marian Otis
Barbara Rhodes
Thomas Slack
Barbara Stahl, Vice Chairperson
Members Absent
Emma Eljas
Maryjane Naughten
A quorum was present.
| | | |
|
2. |
INTRODUCTION OF AUDIENCE MEMBERS
Received introductions from the audience including: Judi Tinlin, VTA Office of the Board Secretary; David Sausjord, VTA Fiscal Resources; Edna Pampy and David Ledwitz, VTA Accessible Services; Duane Haugen, Interested Citizen;
Carolyn Grattan Eichin, VTA Human Resources; Natalie Wells, VTA Accessible Services; Ann Jamison, Deputy Project Manager for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Project; and Sandra Weymouth, VTA Office of the Board Secretary.
| | | |
|
3. |
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Haugen expressed his concern regarding his trip delay with Paratransit Outreach. Mr. Haugen noted that he was late for the April 1, 2004 VTA Board of Directors Regular Meeting due to Paratransit Outreach drivers picking up several passengers before completing a customer trip.
Mr. Haugen expressed his concern regarding the discontinuance of the Residential ECO Pass and its financial impact on the senior/disabled community. Chairperson Julian noted that Mr. Haugens concerns will be forwarded to Staff for comment.
| | | |
|
4. |
Minutes of March 10, 2004
M/S/C (Gouveia/Morrow) on a vote of 14 ayes, to 0 noes, to no abstentions to approve the Minutes of March 10, 2004.
Vice Chairperson Stahl expressed her concern regarding the omission of identification of Committee Member names within the recording of the Committee Meeting Minutes and queried on the reason. George Tacké, Accessible Services Program Manager and CTA Staff Liaison, responded that this is an effort to streamline the Committee Meeting Minutes as a result of limited resources within the Office of the Board Secretary. Mr. Tacké noted that there was debate regarding who said what as well as problems identifying the Committee Member who spoke; therefore, as an end result the Board Secretary decided to keep the Committee Meeting Minutes generic ensuring the specific remarks were included; however, decided to reference the speaker only as Committee Member.
Member Rhodes suggested that Committee Members announce their name before speaking; therefore, ensuring inclusion of their name and statement into the Committee Meeting Minutes. Member Rhodes added that the speakers comments as well as their name is important and should be reflected in the Committee Meeting Minutes.
Member Morrow requested that the outside doors be closed to prevent cigarette smoke from entering the room.
Note: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
| | | |
BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GENERAL MANAGER |
|
5. |
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Update
Ms. Jamison provided a brief overview on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Update. Ms. Jamison commented on the BART Extension Project to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara and noted that in June 2002 the VTA Board of Directors and BART met and selected a preferred alignment for the BART Extension Project. The project is a 16.3-mile extension of the BART System and goes to Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara and includes seven train stations plus one future train station in Milpitas. It includes one maintenance facility in Santa Clara and San Jose. The trains will run on an average six-minute headways and in 2025 the system is projected to carry 83,600 riders in the extension portion. The project cost is currently estimated at $4.112 billion in 2003 dollars. When the VTA Board of Directors and BART considered the project in June 2002 there were several outstanding items relative to the alignment that they did not want to make a decision about at that time but wanted to consider seeking additional information on alignment station options. Ms. Jamison added that the alignment station options will be discussed through the Environmental Impact Review Process. Ms. Jamison noted that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been completed and are available for review in a variety of formats. Ms. Jamison noted that the documents were released on March 16, 2004, with a 60-day comment period that ends May 14, 2004. Ms. Jamison continued that four public hearings have been schedule regarding the EIS/EIR document: the first meeting scheduled on April 12, 2004, at the Santa Clara Senior Center in Santa Clara, second meeting scheduled on April 14, 2004, at the First United Methodist Church in Santa Clara, third meeting scheduled on April 19, 2004, at the Joseph Weller Elementary School in Milpitas, and the fourth meeting scheduled on May 10, 2004, at the First United Methodist Church in San Jose.
Member Otis took her seat at 1:14 p.m.
Ms. Jamison noted that the project is in the middle of the environmental review process working to address the alignment station options and added that the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) for the project will be making final recommendations on the alignment stations options at the May 26, 2004 PAB for the BART Project. Ms. Jamison added that all of the stations through preliminary and final engineering will be designed to comply with all of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and requirements as well as be ADA accessible. Ms. Jamison noted that there are eight stations and added that seven are part of the main project; however, noted that at this time there is no funding for the South Calaveras future station. Ms. Jamison noted that the BART System under their design guidelines does not permit fare gate entrances at track-way elevations and added that fare gates always have to be on the Mezzanine level either above or below the track-way. All of the BART alignment stations have at least one elevation difference between the Mezzanine and track-way level and this is a BART standard. Mezzanine is the level where a customer would pay to ride the train and then move to another level to access the train track-way level. Ms. Jamison provided a brief overview on the eight alignment stations.
South Calaveras Station
Ms. Jamison noted that the South Calaveras future station is an at-grade station, which means that the BART track is at grade level. Access would be via an elevated Mezzanine above the track-way level where a customer would move up one elevation to pay then move down to access the train. Ms. Jamison noted three different layouts for the parking facility and bus transit center; however, added that no decision is required at this time regarding outstanding issues with the layout since funding has not yet been identified for this station.
Montague/Capitol Station
Montague/Capitol Station would be the first station built along the project alignment and noted that this station would be a below-grade station because it is located in a trench and would have to come up one level to be at track-way level. The station has four different designs based on two design elements. The two design issues center on where the transit center will be located and where the concourse access to the train station would be located. The concourse would be elevated or at-grade. There are two transit center options to be considered, the first option would be along a roadway or the second option would be South of the roadway. The second issue is whether there would be an elevated concourse to access the station or if it would be an at-grade access. Staff is recommending the South West transit center and at-grade concourse because it is safer and provides more direct access for customers transferring from buses as well as accessing the facilities.
Berryessa Station
This station includes an elevated track-way with an at-grade concourse; therefore, customers enter an at-grade fare gate and move up one level to access the track-way level. Transit Center and park and ride are located to the West of the station. There are two parking permutations options and noted that both options include a surface parking lot adjacent to the station on the North with accessible parking. Staff is recommending the Southwest option because the Northwest option would require the acquisition of properties that have built industrial developments on it and would cost an additional $20.3 million in funding. Proposal for the station does require an elimination of a portion of the San Jose Flea Market, which would include the removal of 400 vendor stalls from the flea market. Ms. Jamison noted that the property owner of the flea market is examining alternate development opportunities for the flea market site.
Alum Rock Station
Alum Rock Station is located near Julian Street and Highway 101 in San Jose and is designed as a subway station. There are two options for the station: one option would be the track way alignment across an existing railroad bridge over Highway 101 and in the alignment of 28th Street in San Jose. Option one would require tunneling under approximately 45 residential structures in San Jose. The second option would come in East of Highway 101 and would be an underground diagonal alignment. Staff anticipates option one as problematic; therefore, Staff is recommending option two the Highway 101 diagonal alignment.
Civic Plaza University Station
Civic Plaza University Station would be a subway station design where customers would move down one level to the fare area then move down one additional level to the track way train station. There are no options for this station; however, 11 potential entrance locations have been identified and will be resolved as part of the preliminary engineering process. One of the potential entrances would impact a historical structure in downtown San Jose; therefore, there is a possibility that the entrance would be eliminated due to the potential impact on the historical structure.
Market Street Station
Market Street Station would be designed where a customer would move down one level to the fare area then move down to a second level to access the train. Access to the Market Street Station and Civic Plaza University Station would be at surface level along Santa Clara Street. The Market Street Station has seven potential entrance locations that will be resolved as part of the preliminary engineering process.
Diridon Station
Diridon Station is located across the Hewlett Packard (HP) Pavilion in San Jose and North of the Diridon Caltrain Station. Ms. Jamison noted that there are two options for the station and both are subway station options; therefore, a customer would move down one level to the fare area then move down to a second level to access the train. The North Diridon Station option is immediately adjacent to Santa Clara Street and closer to the HP Pavilion. The South Diridon Station is South and would be closer to light rail and the Diridon Caltrain Station. Staff is recommending the South Diridon Station alignment because it provides better customer access to transfers between the Diridon Station and the bus transit center. In addition BART and HP Pavilion have requested the South Diridon Station alignment to prevent over crowding in the station when customers leave the HP Pavilion.
Santa Clara Station
Santa Clara Station is an at-grade station and would require an elevated Mezzanine to access the station; therefore, customers would move up one level from the parking structure and transit center then move down one level to train level. There are two parking structure options for this station. The North parking structure option places the parking structure immediately adjacent to the North of the station. The South parking structure option places the parking structure on some property South of where the bus transit center would be located. Staff is recommending parking structure North because it creates better access for customers. Ms. Jamison noted a second station alignment option regarding how passengers from the BART Station move into the Caltrain Depot and added that there are three proposals. Two of the proposals are aerial crossings of the Caltrain tracks and would come out from the Mezzanine level of the Santa Clara Station and cross over the tracks and come down the other side to access the Caltrain Depot and other facilities. The third proposal is an underground tunnel to access the Caltrain tracks. Ms. Jamison noted an issue with the location of a historical train tower and its relationship to the historic depot. Ms. Jamison noted significant concerns from historic stakeholders who do not want the aerial structures to obscure the visual relationship between the historic tower and station. Ms. Jamison noted that the historic stakeholders have indicated a possibility to move the train tower South in order to eliminate the problem; however, added that Staff is still in negotiations with the historic stakeholders regarding this issue. Ms. Jamison noted that Staff is not in favor of the underground proposal due to several challenges regarding access to the track way.
Ms. Jamison added that all of the station layouts will go through significant detail design through the preliminary and final engineering process and will address ADA requirements.
Chairperson Julian queried on how to obtain a copy of the draft document for review. Ms. Jamison responded that the document may be obtained by contacting VTA Environmental Planning Project at 408-321-5787. Ms. Jamison added that a CD is available at no cost; however, a hard copy of the document will cost $75. Ms. Jamison continued that the entire draft document can be accessed through the website and added that the executive summary is also available in accessible format at www.vta.org/bart. Ms. Jamison noted that comments may be submitted to svrtc.deis-eircomments@vta.org.
Member Slack noted his appreciation for the presentation and queried if any major issues have developed on the project. Ms. Jamison responded that no surprises have shown up; however, noted impacts as well as benefits to the project. Ms. Jamison noted primarily vibration impacts with 12 homes North of the Berryessa Station and added that Staff is working to address the issue. Ms. Jamison noted an intersection impact that could not be mitigated because it would involve removing a building to accommodate additional lanes. Ms. Jamison noted significant construction period impacts in downtown San Jose for the Civic Plaza University Station and Market Street Station. The only way to build these two stations is through cut and cover construction process; however, noted a plan to have the street closed off to work on half of the station construction at a time has been developed. The only other impact issue identified is the historic train tower and depot at the Santa Clara Station. Member Slack noted that all of the impact issues identified do not seem major and appear to be addressable. Ms. Jamison responded that Staff did not identify any issues within the environmental document that would stop the project. Member Slack queried how far off the preliminary engineering would be regarding the first station. Ms. Jamison responded that Staff is in the process of hiring the consultants for the preliminary engineering process and added that information regarding station design could be available within 12 to 18 months. Member Slack noted the CTA as a valuable source regarding the disabled community and requested assurance that the Committee would receive regular updates on the project. Member Slack requested involvement in the first in-house design review on the station to ensure that the ADA requirements are being addressed as well as making the stations user friendly for the disabled community. Ms. Jamison responded that Mark Robinson, Engineering Group Manager, is responsible for the station design portion of the preliminary engineering and noted his intention in participating in outreach for the project. Ms. Jamison noted that the request will be forwarded to Mr. Robinson.
Member Slack queried on the funding of the project. Ms. Jamison responded that the project continues to move forward and noted that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has given the project a Not Recommended Rating within the new starts program; however, noted that Staff is working with FTA to demonstrate VTA’s financial capacity to build and operate the system. Ms. Jamison added that Staff is looking at a variety of funding sources as well as joint developments at the stations that could potentially generate revenues that would help support the operation of the project.
Member Bruntz queried on the location of the Santa Clara Station. Ms. Jamison responded that the station would be located 100 feet north of and on the other side of the tracks from the current Caltrain depot. Member Bruntz queried on the completion date of the stations. Ms. Jamison responded that the completion date for the stations would be fiscal year 2013 – 2014.
Member Stahl queried on the accessibility of the stations and its impact on the disabled community. Ms. Jamison responded that the stations will be in compliance with ADA requirements. Member Rhodes queried if plans are to have the elevators in the main area of the station. Ms. Jamison responded that from the conceptual designs the elevators appear to be in a location approximate to the fare gates. Member Rhodes queried on the implementation of talking signs for the visually impaired. Ms. Jamison responded that this suggestion is appropriate for preliminary and final engineering stage of the project.
Member Morrow noted his appreciation and thanked Staff for the BART presentation. Member Morrow noted his concerns regarding the level challenges within the BART stations design and added that hopefully with the new stations being developed Staff will utilizing new technology and new ways of thinking regarding the design of stations within the BART system.
Member Otis queried on the Santa Clara Station and if it is designed for extending BART to the rest of the County to the Peninsula. Ms. Jamison responded yes and noted that tail tracks would facilitate the extension of the BART system up the Peninsula. Ms. Jamison noted the request by a VTA Board Member to include a second alternative to provide for tail tracks to be taken down into a trench to facilitate direct extension of the BART system into the Norman Y. Minneta International Airport in an underground subway. Staff is recommending at surface tail tracks at this time due to several reasons, such as, an $8 million cost differential and an airport people-mover project is moving forward. Member Otis queried on how the fares relate to Caltrain fares and if they are equivalent, higher, or lower. Ms. Jamison responded that the fares are relatively competitive. Member Otis queried on the BART farebox recovery. Ms. Jamison responded that the farebox recovery in FY 2025 is projected to be 71 percent.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the BART Update report.
| | | |
|
6. |
Proposed Fare Modifications
David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, provided a brief overview on the Proposed Fare Modifications. Mr. Sausjord noted background information provided to the Committee regarding the fare proposal, financial situation and fare policy adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2003. Mr. Sausjord noted a series of community meetings at six locations in San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Gilroy, and Campbell with an overall total attendance of 99 members of the community. Mr. Sausjord noted comments received from the public meetings regarding the following: fare increases and the impact to individuals on fixed incomes, fixed route fares, paratransit fares, comments regarding reduction of operating and administrative costs and several comments on door to door service, and increases to the Youth and Senior/Disabled monthly passes.
Mr. Sausjord noted that Staff addressed many of the comments within the report and commented on two changes that have occurred within the report. Management decided to revise the proposal to reduce the Senior/Disabled monthly pass from $27.50 to $26 and noted that the Senior/Disabled cash fare has been established to be in a 40 45 percent range in comparison to the Adult cash fare. Mr. Sausjord noted that the Paratransit Service Area service charge in the South County, which has been deferred until
June 2004 will be to defer for an additional year till June 30, 2005. Mr. Sausjord noted that additional study will be conducted to determine if other options or alternatives could be implemented to address the issue with the service area surcharge to the South County area.
Member Stahl noted her attendance at one of the public meetings and noted the concerns of the public regarding the proposed fare modifications. Member Stahl queried on how VTA plans to reduce operating and administrative costs to prevent fare increase.
Mr. Sausjord responded that he was not prepared to comment or respond to the issue at this time. Mr. Tacké responded that this is a farebox recovery ratio issue and that the equation involves three factors, such as, ridership, fares per boarding, and fare revenue per hour. Mr. Tacké added that Staff is taking steps to reduce costs and streamline operating costs.
Member Jensen noted the savings within paratransit and recommended a motion for VTA to remove the Paratransit Services category from the farebox recovery ratio and only increase the fare when VTA can justify the need to do so.
M/S/C (Jensen/Gouveia) on a vote of 14 ayes, to 0 noes, to 0 abstentions to approve the motion for VTA to remove the Paratransit Services category from the farebox recovery ratio and increase the fare when VTA can justify the need to do so.
Ex-Officio Committee Member Heatley queried on the Other Riders Category. Mr. Sausjord responded that the figure is placed into the equation to balance the total riders and total revenue.
Member Slack queried on the current status on the surcharge for the door-to-door service regarding Paratransit Outreach. Mr. Sausjord responded that the issue is deferred pending completion of the client re-certification process for Paratransit Outreach and completion of a review of client ability to pay standard policy. Member Slack wanted to ensure that nothing had changed.
Member Grant queried on Attachment E where ridership is combined with economic growth assumptions and noted that it clouds the issue of what fare increases will do to ridership projections. Mr. Sausjord responded that Staff is trying to estimate both real ridership and revenue; therefore, incorporating all actions. Member Grant queried on ridership and if it has regained since last years fare increases. Mr. Sausjord responded that ridership had been dropping before the fare increase and continues to decrease.
Chairperson Julian noted that the modified Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass of $26 was high; therefore, recommended a motion for the Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass not to exceed $22.50.
M/S/C (Julian/Jensen) on a vote of 14 ayes, to 0 noes, to 0 abstentions to approve the motion for the Senior/Disable Monthly Pass not to exceed $22.50.
Member Gouveia queried if the Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass could be $20. Chairperson Julian responded that the recommendation is that it does not exceed $26.
Member Stahl queried if this would be an unreasonable request to make regarding the $22.50 for the Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass. Mr. Sausjord responded that the request does not fit into the farebox recovery ratio scenario. Chairperson Julian noted the dramatic increase from $17.50 to $26 for the Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass and added that this is a high increase and would financially impact the Senior/Disabled community.
Member Morrow queried on the amount of revenue the increase would generate for VTA. Member Otis queried on how many Senior/Disabled Monthly Passes are sold. Mr. Sausjord responded that approximately 80,000 Senior/Disabled Monthly Passes are sold and added that the increase from $17.50 to $26 for the Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass would generate approximately $7,000 to $8,000 a month in additional revenue.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the Proposed Fare Modifications.
| | | |
|
7. |
Paratransit Service Area: South County
Mr. Tacké provided a brief overview on the Paratransit Service Area: South County. Mr. Tacké noted that this request is a result of Member Gage requesting that Staff re-evaluate the Paratransit Service Area and the impact on the South County residents and further requested expanding the Paratransit Service Area in South County. Mr. Tacké responded that there appears to be a higher that average number of people per square mile in the South County who will be impacted due to its rural setup. The end result is that there are a number of people who live outside of the ľ mile corridor; therefore, Staff re-examined the area and will conduct a study within the next couple of months to consider flexible fixed routes and Paratransit feeder service. Mr. Tacké noted the recommendation to defer the Paratransit Service Area surcharge in the South County for an additional year until June 30, 2005.
Member Morrow noted his appreciation regarding the approach to the Paratransit Service Area surcharge in the South County by VTA. Member Rhodes recommended that Staff conduct a study within the North County as well. Mr. Tacké responded that the request will be forwarded for consideration.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the Paratransit Service Area: South County Report.
| | | |
|
8. |
Fiscal Year 2004 2005 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores
David Ledwitz, Paratransit Management Analyst, provided a brief overview on the
Fiscal Year 2004 2005 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores. Mr. Ledwitz noted that the LRC met on March 8 and 9, 2004 to review and scored 22 applications for Section 5310 Funding Cycle projects submitted by 5 local applicants. Mr. Ledwitz referenced Attachment B and noted that 18 of the projects are rated at 85 or higher. Mr. Ledwitz added that projects that score over 75 are considered fundable and noted that Attachment A shows last years 18 applicants who received fundable scores. Mr. Ledwitz noted that on April 2, 2004, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) the local regional review agency held an appeals panel to allow Bay Area Agencies to appeal their scores if they felt that the scores were not awarded correctly. Mr. Ledwitz added that VTA worked with two applicant agencies, Self-Help for the elderly and Front Porch, to provide advice regarding the appeals. Mr. Ledwitz noted that Self-Help for the elderly presented a well-written appeal identifying a point-by-point detailed report. Mr. Ledwitz added that Self-Help was able to get their original score of 65 to be reconsidered to 83 placing them well above the fundable cut-off line. Mr. Ledwitz noted the next step in the process is with Caltrans review committee then hold another appeals conference in July and then forward the recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in September for approval. Mr. Ledwitz added that the list will be forward to the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) to be included in the Federal 2004 2005 Budget. When funding becomes available, the applicants will be notified of the funding for their projects. Mr. Ledwitz thanked Chairperson Julian and Members Morrow and Otis for their diligent work and assistance within the LRC.
Member Morrow noted his appreciation and thanked Mr. Ledwitz and Staff for their assistance with the process within the LRC.
Ex-Officio Heatley noted that there needs to be an adjustment in the attitude towards seeking federal funds to make life in the community and mobility better and added that there needs to be a change in philosophy regarding smaller groups who intend to fend for themselves.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the Fiscal Year 2004 2005 Section 5310 Funding Cycle Local Review Committee (LRC) Recommended Project Review Scores.
| | | |
|
9. |
Paratransit Eligibility Program Community Outreach Update
Edna Pampy, Accessible Services Senior Management Analyst, provided a brief overview on the Paratransit Eligibility Program Community Outreach Update. Ms. Pampy noted that this is the sixth Staff presentation since July 2003 detailing implementation and operational statistics for the Paratransit Eligibility and Appeals Program. Ms. Pampy noted that the report covers data from July 2003 until February 2004 or March 2004. Ms. Pampy provided information on brochure distribution, post cards requesting applications, hotline calls, interview sites, eligibility certifications and denials, and community presentations. Ms. Pampy noted that the brochure which service is right for you provides information about the accessible features of a fixed route system and paratransit services. Ms. Pampy commented that the prepaid post-card needs to be completed and returned to request an application packet. Ms. Pampy noted that in March 2004 the third printing of the brochure with a count of 15,000 copies was completed. Ms. Pampy added a slight change in the post-card was the inclusion of the check box for new customer or check box for outreach customer. Ms. Pampy noted that this additional information will help to assist when processing the information. The identification number can be used to conduct a query to locate a person within the database and assists in facilitating the process. Ms. Pampy noted that the initial printing of 10,000 copies, second printing of 15,000 copies and the third printing of 15,000 copies of the brochures for a total count of 40,000 copies. Ms. Pampy noted that a majority of the copies will be distributed to community sources and individuals for application.
Ms. Pampy noted that the first 25,000 copies have been distributed to the following: Outreach, Disability Services and VTA Customer Services mailing over 20,000 copies of the brochures and noted that the remaining 5,000 were distributed directly by VTA Accessible Services Staff. Ms. Pampy noted that Outreach continues to send the largest number of brochures out to applicants. Disability Services sent out the second largest and are responsible for sending out the 90-day re-certification notice, which includes the brochure that initiates the process. Ms. Pampy noted that VTA Customer Services Staff has been trained regarding the eligibility process and how to assist the applicants. Ms. Pampy added that VTA Accessible Services Staff continues to work with community resource agencies regarding the new eligibility process and are willing to provide assistance as needed.
Ms. Pampy noted that post-cards received by Disability Services are on a daily basis and noted that application packets are sent to applicants the day of or the day after they were received. Ms. Pampy added that the packets are generally mailed on Monday, Wednesday and Friday to applicants. Ms. Pampy noted that based upon the post-card requests, over 6,000 application packets have been sent out by Disability Services and 4,000 went to new applicants, and 2,000 to re-certification applicants. Ms. Pampy added that Staff will track the number of applicants not responding to the 90-day or 30-day re-certification notices and noted that the number is about 470 applicants. Staff plans to follow up and determine why they have not responded. Ms. Pampy added that Staff will also conduct surveys of applicants who were sent out applications but never responded and will provide follow up as needed.
Ms. Pampy added that the implementation and staffing of the Accessible Services Hotline has proven to be an invaluable tool in establishing and maintaining contact with new and re-certified applicants. Ms. Pampy noted that when callers contact the hotline they will speak with a real person or a real person will call them back. Ms. Pampy noted that the hotline receives an average of 15 calls per day; however, this number has increase to 19 calls per day.
Ms. Pampy commented on the two interview sites and noted that the main office is the San Jose interview site. The San Jose office is located at 4030 Moorpark and operates five days per week. The Mountain View interview site is located at 465 Fairchild and operates four days per week. Ms. Pampy noted that offsite interviews are conducted every month on a rotation basis at the Gilroy Senior Center and Morgan Hill Senior Center to accommodate South County residents.
Ms. Pampy noted 2,162 applications received or interviews completed, 1,169 new applicants certified, 30 new applicants denied certification, 933 re-certified applicants, and 30 re-certified applicants denied certification. An overall denial rate of 2.8 percent and added that applicants have 60 days to appeal the denial. Ms. Pampy noted that eligibility and denial appeals have been separated into Categories of Disability.
Ms. Pampy noted that two additional programs are being developed in order to reach out to potential customers who were denied eligibility to assist with their transportation needs by developing an informational packet containing help with trip planning for bus and light rail and noted that Staff is promoting more extensive use of the Paratransit ID Card Program. Ms. Pampy commented on the Transition Management within the Paratransit Program and added that it was a result the economic downturn creating an urgent need to redo every aspect of the program as well as implement cost containment strategies in order to continue to provide quality service to the customers.
Chairperson Julian requested that the Committee Meeting be extended by 10 minutes.
Member Stahl queried on the eligibility category criteria with Orthopedic Hospital and if it was the same as the ADA eligibility category criteria. Ms. Pampy responded that the criteria should be the same with both; however, added that this issue needs to be addressed; therefore, requested that Member Stahl provide the name of the individual in order to meet with the manager to discuss the issue.
Member Jensen requested a copy of the Paratransit Eligibility Program Community Outreach Update report. Mr. Tacké noted that the report will be sent to all the Committee Members via e-mail.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the Paratransit Eligibility Program Community Outreach Update.
| | | |
OTHER |
|
10. |
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee Report
Member Rhodes provided a brief overview on the MTC Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee Report. Member Rhodes noted that MTC is examining the amount of accidents that are occurring with elderly drivers; therefore, are encouraging the elderly to use fixed route service.
Member Morrow noted that he used the 511-transportation information number and added that it is a good resource.
The Committee received the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Elderly/Disabled Advisory Committee Report.
| | | |
|
11. |
Legislative Updates
There were no Legislative Updates.
| | | |
|
12. |
Committee Staff Report
Mr. Tacké provided a brief update on the automatic enunciators. Mr. Tacké noted that the next stop announcements have all been professionally recorded, verified by Staff for proper pronunciation, set up for every route in the system, and noted that testing has started this week. Operators drive the normal route and verify the announcements and visual display to ensure that it is correct and accurate. Mr. Tacké noted few problems the with the automatic enunciators; however, added that all of the problems are technical in nature and will be addressed. Mr. Tacké added that there are seven groups of routes being tested and added that only one or two adjustments were required on each route at this time. Mr. Tacké noted that as the groups are tested Staff will move on to the next group set and activate the routes as they are completed. Mr. Tacké noted that best estimate to have some of the routes with this system is set for July 2004 when other system changes are implemented. Mr. Tacké noted that the Caltrain Baby Bullet service begins Monday, June 7, 2004; therefore, Caltrain weekend service will resume on Saturday, June 5, 2004. Mr. Tacké noted that BART CDs were available for distribution to Committee Members.
Member Slack queried on the criteria to determine which bus stops will be announced. Mr. Tacké noted that it is driven by the ADA; therefore, must call out all major intersections, major destinations and make frequent announcements so that people will be oriented and able to know where they are. Mr. Tacké added that customers may call in and request that they require a certain stop announced.
Member Morrow expressed his concern regarding the issue of the low-floor buses and the operators ability to turn off the stop-requested announcers. Mr. Tacké responded that VTA opted to have audible stop-requested signal along with the visual display; however, the audible display is not required by the ADA. Mr. Tacké added that the ding sound and visual display suffice. Mr. Tacké noted mixed responses from customers regarding the audible display and added that some customers like it and some do not. Mr. Tacké noted that the Public Address (PA) system on the bus overrides all other systems on the bus. Mr. Tacké noted that Staff is working on the issue.
The Committee Staff Report was received.
| | | |
|
13. |
Chairpersons Report
There was no Chairpersons Report.
| | | |
|
14. |
Announcements
There were no Announcements.
| | | |
|
15. |
ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson Julian, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle M. Garza, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors
| | | |
|
|
Rider's Links 
