Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 5:04 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Sandoval in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Members Cheng and Mahan took their seats at 5:06 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Minutes of May 8, 2003

M/S/C (Perry/Waltonsmith) on a vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes to 1 abstention to approve the Minutes of May 8, 2003, as submitted. Member Walker abstained.

Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.

Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson's Report.

Legislative Report

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, reported at the state level that there is a state budget and given the magnitude of the deficit that the Legislature and the Governor had to address in excess of $38 billion that all areas of state government was going to feel the pain and transportation was certainly no exception.

Mr. Evans reported from a transportation perspective during the budget debate was the so-called Proposition 42 Funds, which are sales tax on gasoline revenues that prior to 2000, actually went to the General Fund. In 2000, all of that changed with the enactment of the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), which transferred the revenues from the General Fund to transportation for local streets and roads, for the Public Transportation Account, for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and for a list of about 140 some odd projects.

Mr. Evans reported that what occurred this year during the budget debate was a partial suspension of Proposition 42 funds. The Legislature and the Governor kept a bulk of the funds in the General Fund and allowed only a portion of those revenues to move over into the transportation arena.  Specifically, what was in play was about $1.145 billion in FY 2004 in Proposition 42 gasoline sales tax revenue.  The budget package keeps $856 million in the General Fund on a loan basis and has to be paid back to transportation by June 30, 2009, with interest.  He noted what remained for transportation was $100 million for the State Highway Account, which could be used for STIP or State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects, and $189 million for the list of about 140 TCRP Projects. He noted that there would be no Proposition 42 funds for local streets and roads and for the Public Transportation Account in FY 2004.

Mr. Evans referred to transportation and noted that the budget package requires early payment of a $173 million loan from the State Highway Account to the General Fund that was made in FY 2003.  He noted that the budget package deferred a $500 million loan repayment due in FY 2004 from the General Fund to the TCRP until FY 2009.

Mr. Evans reported at the federal level that Congress was in recess until after Labor Day.  He noted that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) expires on September 30, 2003, and that Congress has less than three weeks to get a reauthorization bill done.  When the lawmakers get back in town, the focus of the discussion will shift on a short-term extension of TEA-21.

Mr. Evans reported that the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee Leaders led by Chairman Don Young have put on the table a $375 billion program over six years for highways and transit. To get to the $375 billion number, Chairman Young proposed a gas tax increase to make up for the lost purchasing power of the gas tax since 1991; and once this is done, it is indexed for inflation.  The White House and House Leadership oppose the proposal.

Member Lear took his seat at 5:16 p.m.

Mr. Evans reported in the Senate, highways goes to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and transit goes to the Senate Banking Committee. A $311 program is being proposed over six years.  The transportation leaders in the Senate nor Senate Leadership supports a gas tax increase. 

Mr. Evans noted a controversial proposal put on the table by Senators Grassley and Baucus that would shift all of the gas tax money that is now going to the transit program over to highways. The Senators have proposed an untested, unproven tax credit-bonding scheme to fund the transit program.  The White House and the Senate Banking Committee do not support the proposal.

Member Perry referred to the tax credit bonding and queried if it generates any money coming from the government.  Mr. Evans noted that the Treasury would issue bonds and those who are bondholders, rather than being paid interest on the bonds, would get a tax credit.

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Legislative Report was received.

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

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines Adoption

Chester Fung, Transportation Planner, distributed a document entitled Executive Summary: Walkability Concepts and Checklist and noted that the document was not contained in the final draft of the Pedestrian Technical Guidelines.

Mr. Fung reported that Pedestrian Technical Guidelines stems from the Community Design & Transportation Programs Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use.  The Manual did not give specific guidance on pedestrian designs in particular and there was a need for more specific and more focus on pedestrian design. 

Mr. Fung reported in VTP 2020 a new program was defined for capital projects, which was the Pedestrian and Livable Communities Program. 

Mr. Fung reported that since pedestrian infrastructure in a variety of different jurisdictions are under public and private control, VTA determined that putting out a resource book for pedestrian design would be the best way to improve pedestrian environment.

Mr. Fung reported that the Pedestrian Technical Guidelines document is organized to address various physical pieces of the built environment, with sections devoted to pieces that are for pedestrians, such as plazas, sidewalks, overcrossings, and pathways.  There are also pieces that can support pedestrians, such as streets, building sites, and parking lots. 

Mr. Fung reported that the Guidelines would be used to create the fund guidance in a criteria that would be used to decide among different project proposals, and would be a great way for VTA to advocate for good pedestrian designs.  The Guidelines is a good item for VTA to start showing around the County and for insertion into local planning practices.  VTA is moving into the outreach phase for Community Design and Transportation and it would be a nice package for VTA to bring when meeting with city staffs to show how the principles and concepts could be implemented in local planning practices.

Mr. Fung reported that a technical Working Group was created to develop the Guidelines.  He noted that some of the members of the Working Group were members from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.  The Working Group met on a monthly basis for about half a year and created an administrative draft, which was then circulated throughout the County.  He noted that VTA received comments back and incorporated the comments into the Guidelines.

Upon query of Member Kennedy, Mr. Fung noted that the source of funds would be from the Regional Transportation for Livable Communities Program.

Upon query of Member Waltonsmith, Mr. Fung noted that the cities would start using the Guidelines for projects in the development review process.   The idea is to get ahead and say before any new development proposals come in, take a look at the Guidelines and incorporate these into any designs that might be submitted through the city process.

Member Brodsky noted that the Guidelines were excellent.   He referred to light rail and queried who actually starts such projects and says at each station there will be a place where a car can actually stop, the pedestrian can get out or wait to be picked up on the side of the road, and then easily cross the street.  Mr. Fung noted that one of the things that VTA tried to address in the Guidelines is the particular issue of access to transit.  He noted that there is a section in the Guidelines that talks about things to do to improve transit access.  Mr. Fung noted the idea is that there is a working relationship between VTA and the cities to try and get the overlap into areas of responsibility, so that transit access could be improved.

Member Brodsky noted that every single light rail station has no stopping on the street for pick up and drop.   He asked who initiates this, where does it get initiated, how does it get started.  Mr. Fung noted it ends up being sort of a collaboration and a discussion between the city folks who have jurisdiction over the local streets and how the curb space gets used.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval clarified that the Guidelines implementation or at least consideration would occur when a new development is occurring.   She indicated that she was not sure that the Guidelines are set-up to address mistakes with existing projects.  She noted that she does not know if the City of San Jose, the County or VTA staff has that in mind.  She queried if VTA would be addressing.  Mr. Fung noted that VTA has it in mind that projects through the new fund program could be for new development or for areas that are going through redevelopment, but the pedestrian facilities in the area have not yet been brought up to par.  He noted that taking a look at the existing transit stations might be a good candidate for a project for the new program.

Member Arellano noted in terms of talking to staff, traffic engineers, and city councilpersons, this is great.  He noted that he is being informed that things cannot be done, due to the terms of the level of service A, B, C, D, and E, in terms of how long the cars have to wait, so the wider it is, the less they have to wait and the wider it is the more you have to run across from one intersection to another intersection.   He queried if VTA had any statistics showing that the wider the road the better it is for everyone, not just for cars.  Mr. Fung noted that statistics like that are hard to come by.  He noted that VTA is looking more at the idea of pedestrian comfort.  It may be a little bit more difficult to qualify in terms of a level of service.  The issue of level of service is a city discussion, because it is a citywide policy that is connected by the general plan.  VTA advocates the idea that the level of service does not have to apply across the board of the entire city.  There can be pockets in the city where it could be decided that moving a pedestrian is at least as important as moving the cars in the area.  Mr. Fung noted that there is state legislation that allows cities to do this.  VTAs level of service standard is E for any CMP designated intersection in a city.

Ms. Gonot reported that VTA would try to hold a workshop with city staffs regarding level of service standards.

Member Perry noted the Guidelines were excellent.   He noted in addition to improving the Guidelines, that the Committee recommend that the Guidelines be used for evaluation of all VTA projects, whether they are transit, road, or pedestrian.

Member Kennedy noted the Guidelines were excellent.   He noted that his city needs help with some approaches to implement the Guidelines.  He requested that a roadmap be provided showing how cities get support for projects.

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that as part of the Community Design and Transportation Program, VTA is preparing to submit a call for projects.   He referred to the Pedestrian Master Plan contained in the Guidelines and noted it might be a first step.

Member LeZotte noted that a year and a half ago the City of San Jose decided that it was going to take the whole concept of traffic calming and integrate it into their Department of Transportation.   As far as the roadmap, what the City of San Jose initially did was to first make it a policy.  The City of San Jose created a four-member subcommittee and within six months developed a plan.

Upon query of Member Waltonsmith, Ms. Gonot noted that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would be doubling the amount of monies available at the regional level for the Transportation for Livable Communities Projects.  She noted that VTA has not competed well, but if you could get a vision and a good project lined up, you compete much better at the regional level.

M/S/C (Kennedy/LeZotte) to recommend that the Board of Directors adopt the VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines.    The Committee further recommended that VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines be used for evaluation of all VTA projects, whether they are transit, road, or pedestrian.

Valley Transportation Plan 2030 and MTC Transportation 2030 Update Planning Process

Ms. Gonot reported that this year VTA is about to embark upon updating their long-range countywide transportation plan.  She noted that the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 is now called the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030.

Ms. Gonot noted that MTC is in the process of updating their Regional Transportation Plan called Transportation 2030 Plan.

Ms. Gonot distributed a revised graph entitled Valley Transportation Plan 2030 and MTC's Transportation 2030 Planning Process, noting that the graphs contained in the Agenda Packet were combined.  She directed attention to the revised graph, VTA category, and noted that there would be a series of workshops to develop VTA's draft project lists.  There are ten program areas within VTP 2030, which covers highways, expressways, local streets and roads, pavement management, soundwalls, bicycles, Livable Communities Pedestrian Program, landscape restoration, graffiti removal, transportation systems operations and management, and transit.  VTA provides a whole list of projects that would be adopted into the countywide plan and then submitted to MTC Regional Transportation Plan.

Ms. Gonot noted that MTC started early on in the process and would adopt their plan in January 2005.  MTC has delegated down to the Congestion Management Agencies to be involved in the public involvement efforts that needs to be done in each of the counties.

Ms. Gonot noted that VTA will be looking at the draft project lists up until December 2003. She noted that VTA would be developing the prioritized project lists for each of the program areas as well as looking for regional program investment priorities.  She noted what MTC does based on the state and federal discretionary money that they estimate would come in over 25 years, MTC takes a chunk of the money and says these are for regional programs.

Member Perry queried are we losing because we are not getting as good of ideas up there.  Is part of the problem that we need to get our act in order to get good ideas coming up.  Ms. Gonot noted that she thinks it is a little bit of both, noting the commute issue in Silicon Valley.

Member Brodsky noted that what he does not see in the plan is what percentage of the commute population would need to get into transit to affect the loss of service levels at each stage in time.  Ms. Gonot noted that when VTA does the plan, VTA will have to do a series of systemwide measures.  She noted that MTC has done it at a regional-wide level.  VTA has never done it within the County, but said okay what if we implement the program that we have, how does it change transit usage.

Member Brodsky asked what if we find we failed, what is the repercussion? At what point do you say, if we do not do something to support our light rail, etc., or if we spend all the money and had all that money, is that still enough to actually tip the scale.  He referred to the numbers he is getting and noted even if we had every dollar allocated from the state and federal and we had the BART to San Jose.  Except for downtown San Jose and their redevelopment, there is no traffic relief for the rest of the valley.  He noted there is no place in here that says we have spent a lot of money on a high-speed network, yet we are trying to run the majority of our transit at a dial-up speed at 14 miles an hour.  He noted that there is no place in the system to entertain the debate or comparison.

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 and MTC Transportation 2030 Update Planning Process was discussed.

January 2004 Transit Service Reduction Plan

Mike Aro, Service & Operations Planning Deputy Director, reported that on June 5, 2003, the Board of Directors adopted a two-year Budget. The strategy for adopting the two-year Budget was to buy VTA a couple of years until VTA could go out to the public looking for a new revenue source.

Mr. Aro reported that the Board of Directors has assembled an Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee to look at different revenue sources to fund transit. He noted that VTA has a revenue shortfall of approximately $60 to $100 million.

Mr. Aro reported that in order for VTA to have the two-year Budget several financial transactions had to be done. He noted that a fare increase was implemented on August 1, 2003. Mr. Aro reported included in the two-year Budget was a 21 percent service reduction, which was supposed to go in effect in October 2003.  At the Board Meeting, the Board of Directors directed staff to look at the possibility of advancing 2000 Measure A funds to avoid making the 21 percent service cut.

Mr. Aro noted that the January 2004 Transit Service Reduction Plan contained a proposal to do the following: 1) to do a 21 percent service reduction if 2000 Measure A funds cannot be used or 2) to do a three percent service reduction if the 2000 Measure A funds can be used. Mr. Aro noted that a three percent service reduction is normally done every year on routes that are substandard and have very low ridership.  In the past, VTA has taken the resources saved from the three percent service reduction and placed the savings back into the system to used for more productive areas.

Mr. Aro reported that in April 2001 VTA had a three percent service reduction, in July 2002 a five percent service reduction, and in April 2003 a nine percent service reduction.

Mr. Aro reported that VTA went out to the public with a four percent service reduction and ten community meetings were held in June 2003. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) meeting was held during the month of August 2003 and another CEQA meeting will be held during the month of September 2003.  He noted VTA received a lot of input on the service reductions directing attention to Attachment B - Summary of Public Meeting Comments.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval asked when staff expects to find out if VTA was successful or unsuccessful in putting together advancement of 2000 Measure A money.  Mr. Aro noted that the day following the August 7, 2003 Board Meeting, staff went to take the case to court and expects a decision between 30-60 days unless challenged.  If challenged it would be six months to a year.  Mr. Brodsky noted that the date would be September 10, 2003, if not challenged.

Member Perry queried if there are numbers to evaluate per dollar efficacy of monies spent towards Caltrain or Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) versus monies spent on buses. Mr. Aro noted was part of the Budget.

Member Perry noted that there are a lot more people lined up at a Caltrain Station than at any bus stop, excluding Lines 22 and 60.  He noted that he would like to, in addition to receiving a report, recommend if necessary to make the Budget, further cuts to the lower used bus lines, including those in his community to be able to fund some of the Caltrain services.  He noted in terms of the number of people served, at least for Mountain View, Caltrain is where it´s at.

Mr. Aro noted in looking at a system, Caltrain is part of the transportation system and there should be an entire network consisting of buses, Caltrain, light rail all working together.  He noted that Line 22 carries as many people as the Caltrain line. If there are not any routes feeding Line 22 or Caltrain, than ridership would be affected.

Member Kennedy left the meeting at 6:17 p.m.

Member Perry noted that he has not seen evidence that feeder lines substantially affect the efficacy of Caltrain and that he does not think VTA´s feeder lines are designed well enough to do that.

Member Arellano referred to the feeder lines and noted that it is system wide, so you cannot catalyze one part of the system to upgrade the other part without other things falling apart on the side. 

Member Perry noted he would like to have the discussion of how VTA could improve their feeder lines in order to make the whole system work better together.  He noted that his fear is that he does not want to see VTA cannibalize the part of the system that works, that being the high-speed rail, in order to fund the parts that happen to be under the jurisdiction.

Member Waltonsmith noted that if the 21 percent service reductions take place, it will be a dog fight of who gets cut and that she does not want to use this forum to try to make the case to save each of our parts at the expense of somebody else´s parts. She noted that we will have to worry about the process, how we go about taking the money away from all of these different systems, people, and groups. She noted that the process is going to be extremely important.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval queried about the process and queried if there is a forum or what type of forum will take place if the 21 percent service reductions have to be made.  Mr. Aro noted that this is the process. He noted that community and CEQA meetings have been held and that another CEQA meeting would be held in September 2003.  By October 2003, VTA should have an answer on whether or not the 2000 Measure A funding could be used and if not, there would be a 21 percent service reduction in January 2004.

Upon query of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, Mr. Aro noted that the Transit Service Reduction Plan would be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their October 2003 Meeting.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval asked if the court case is decided between September 10, 2003, and October 2003, what kind of outreach would be done for the community to talk about the service reductions, so that the users of the system would be able to influence that decision. Mr. Aro noted that outreach has already been done, such as flyers placed on buses and community meetings.  He noted that the information pertaining to the three percent and 21 service reductions have been posted to VTA´s website.  He noted that once the Board of Directors takes action, VTA would have to notify those impacted of the changes.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval recommended that VTA re-notice that these service reductions may come down the line.  She noted that she thinks it is very bad public policy to have noticed people in June 2003 that the service reductions may possibly occur, have a court case decision in mid-September, and implement service reductions that people have now forgotten about back in June 2003 that would affect their day-to-day commute.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval requested that staff take into consideration that VTA really needs to alert the ridership once the court case comes out and then staff has a direction of whether it is going to be a three or 21 percent service reduction.  She noted that even if there is a three percent service reduction, that the ridership be alerted as to what changes would be affecting them in their daily commute.

Member Lear left the meeting at 6:25 p.m.

Member LeZotte asked if the case were appealed, would the 21 percent service reductions take place.  Mr. Aro noted that the challenges would have to be looked at and an assessment would have to be made.

Member Perry noted that his concern is explicitly with the process.  He noted that we have already told ACE and Caltrain sorry there is no money.  He noted that has not come before this Committee and to his knowledge, it has not gone before the Board. It is something that just seems to go without saying that we are going to protect our people before we worry about your people and we do not care which is more effective.  Member Perry noted that from a process perspective, the fact that we made a budgetary decision to make these cuts smaller by making larger cuts to our regional obligations is not even in here.  He noted that we are supposed to be a Policy Advisory Committee and that we are supposed to get that information.

Member Perry requested that staff prepare a report containing the following information and that the report be agendized for the next meeting: what are the transfer rates between Caltrain and VTA buses; what is the ridership on each VTA line serving the Caltrain stations; and associated costs related to trains, buses and subsidies.

Mr. Aro noted that the information was provided as part of the Budget process. Included in the Budget document it states that the contribution to VTA´s partners, Caltrain and ACE, would be held at the current levels.  He noted that the Budget has been approved and does not think any changes will be made to the Budget document.

Member Brodsky commented that he is shocked to hear that the Budget has already been approved.  He noted that the copies of the Budgets that the Committee received were incorrect.  The Budgets the Committee received showed $105 million and another $25 million in debt service, which was later found not to be debt service, but were monies put toward capital improvements.

Member Brodsky noted since that time, public testimony was heard at the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee that these are not expenses and VTA would go after Commercial Paper up to $500 million and $81 million over a long-term debt and something would be done with the light rail cars.  Member Brodsky noted that he is still yet to see the bottom line where that has been adjusted.  He noted that to hear that the Budget is done and to hear that the cuts are in place before the discussion of how many light rail cars are gathering rust could be sold to offset that for the next two years makes him question the ability to advise.

Member Arellano left his seat at 6:30 p.m. and the quorum was lost and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Ms. Gonot noted that the final Budget has not been printed.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval requested that the Committee be provided copies of the final Adopted Budget.

Member Brodsky noted that VTA ridership is approximately three to five percent and it changes every three years.  What that means is that without targeting the marketing on what is effective, cutting the amounts out from one line to another really has very little affect on the population.

Member Arellano took his seat at 6:32 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval asked if Mr. Aro could pull the information together for the next scheduled meeting in September 2003. Mr. Aro noted it would be difficult.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval requested that the item be agendized for one of the next two meetings.

M/S/C (Perry/Brodsky) on a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes to 1 abstention to request that staff provide a report containing the following information: what are the transfer rates between Caltrain and VTA buses; what is the ridership on each VTA line serving the Caltrain stations; and associated costs related to trains, buses and subsidies.  Further requested that the report be agendized for either the September 2003 or October 2003 Meeting. (Member Arellano abstained.)

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, a report regarding the January 2004 Transit Service Reduction Plan was received.

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for April June 2003

Erin Chao, Transportation Planner II, reported that for this years state and federal funding deadlines, all of the Project Sponsors have submitted their location requests to Caltrans. 

Ms. Chao noted that there are two Creek Trail projects, which are still waiting for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance with Caltrans.  VTA staff is working with Caltrans local assistance to accelerate the review process in order to get approval before the September 20, 2003 deadline.

Ms. Chao noted that the next Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report would be presented to the Committee in October 2003.

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for April June 2003 was received and filed. 

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report

Samantha Swan, Transportation Planner II, reported that the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report contains the following two parts: 1) Conditions of Approval Monthly Report and 2) Responses to Selected Projects Reviewed by VTA.   She noted that staff combined the last three (3) reports for the months of April, May, and June 2003 into one report.

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report was received and filed. 

Announcements

Ms. Gonot queried if PAC Members received the Community Design & Transportation Program Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use.  She noted copies were mailed out the month of July 2003.

Member Brodsky noted that the Manual contained goals where one can set-up places that could gather people together to get them on to the high-speed network.

Adjournment

On order of Vice Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors