Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

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

Chairperson Risch asked for a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Patricia Dixon
Dominic Caserta
Dennis Kennedy
Yoriko Kishimoto
Linda J. LeZotte
Greg Perry
Joe Pirzynski
Tim Risch, Chairperson
Dolores Sandoval, Vice Chairperson
Ann Waltonsmith

Members Absent
Emily Cheng
Dan Furtado
Craig Gartman
Liz Kniss
King Lear

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

James Wightman, Interested Citizen, addressed the Committee and asked what is going to be on the 2004 Measure A Projects.  John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, referred to the discussion of seeking an additional revenue source for VTA, which could be a ballot measure in 2004 and noted that the Board of Directors has not decided whether or not to pursue a ballot measure.

Minutes of August 14, 2003

M/S/C (Perry/Caserta) on a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes to 1 abstention to approve the Minutes of August 14, 2003, as submitted.  Member Dixon abstained.

Member Waltonsmith took her seat at 5:07 p.m.

Committee Staff Report

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, reported that in November 2002, VTA adopted the Community Design & Transportation Program as its primary program to integrate transportation land use and developed a comprehensive manual.  Mr. Augenstein reported as part of the program, VTA developed a number of grant fund programs and to be eligible to apply for the grant fund programs, VTA is asking the cities to formally endorse the Community Design & Transportation Program. 

Mr. Augenstein reported that in June 2003, VTA sent out letters to the cities with some guidelines about what VTA was looking for as far as endorsement and is asking for endorsement by the end of October 2003.

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

Transit Service

Mike Aro, Service and Operations Planning Deputy Director, reported that at the August 14, 2003 PAC Meeting he conducted a presentation on the January 2004 Service Reduction Plan.  He noted that the Committee requested information on the following: 1) transfers between Caltrain and buses, 2) VTA data showing ridership activity by bus line, at each Caltrain station, and 3) cost per rider and subsidy information. 

Mr. Aro reported that Caltrain conducts a survey every couple of years and noted that the last survey was conducted in May 2003.  He directed attention to the preliminary results from the survey contained in Item #4.X.

Member Kennedy took his seat at 5:10 p.m.

Mr. Aro reported that Member Perry requested that staff estimate VTA ridership to Caltrain and noted that the report contains by station how many people boarded and their mode of access and egress at each station.

Mr. Aro referred to the VTA routes serving Caltrain stations, including ridership activity and noted that the report provided a line-by-line summary with average weekday boarding and alighting activity at each station.

Mr. Aro directed attention to Attachment C - VTA Directly Operated, Contracted and Inter-Agency Services FY 2002 Cost Per Passenger, contained in the report and noted that the attachment provides a comparison of cost and subsidy per rider for both directly operated and inter-agency/contracted services.

Member Perry noted that the information provided was helpful. He noted that the original recommendation from the Committee had been for a following discussion and queried if the discussion would be coming up on the next agenda.

Chairperson Risch queried if the report tonight was only a partial report and if additional information would follow.  Mr. Ristow noted that the report was meant to satisfy a referral back from the Committee.

Member Perry reported that he was looking for information by bus line, which of our bus lines are higher and lower performing.  If you look at Caltrain and the bus lines, how do they rank, what is the most effective. He noted he wanted to have a discussion on the matter.

Member Kishimoto queried if there is information pertaining to ridership by bus line.  Mr. Aro noted that VTA prepares a route evaluation report annually that is forwarded to the Board of Directors.  He noted that a report was not prepared last year, because staff was directed to do a 21 percent service cut.  Mr. Aro noted that VTA's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) contains productivity information.

Member Dixon noted that several months ago, at the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee level, information was provided listing numbers and descriptions in combination with VTA and the consultants to see where most of the heavily used bus routes were located.

Chairperson Risch asked Member Perry to clarify his request.  Member Perry requested that the item be agendized and then the Committee can make a recommendation.  He queried if VTA has any way of measuring how much the feeder buses actually feed Line 22; how many people transfer from Line 63 to Line 22.  If VTA has the same type of survey results for the uncut buses, it would be great.  Member Perry requested information on ridership and an estimate of cost of running the line for the various buses.

Member Kishimoto referred to the proposed 21 percent service reductions and requested that the numbers be listed side-by-side to see what staff recommended in terms of cuts.

Chairperson Risch asked if the request was doable in a reasonable amount of time.  Mr. Aro reported that the January 2004 Service Reductions are being forwarded to the Standing Committees the week of September 15, 2003, and then forwarded to the Board of Directors for action on October 2, 2003.  He noted that it would take awhile to gather the information requested and would probably not be provided to the PAC until the meeting after next.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval noted that she thought that the numbers were provided to the PAC a couple of months ago and discussed the impacts of why certain lines were being cut and what the value was to the ridership. If this is a way to influence the Board's decision, do we want staff spending time doing that or should we have them work on the next set of issues.

Member Perry noted that there are two decision points, one is now and one is potentially the next year's budget.  For the one coming up, the Committee has to make the best recommendations that we can today given the time constraints.  The second is that budget cycles come and it is important that we look at in detail which lines are most important both from a political perspective as well as which lines actually have people on them and which ones are most costly per rider.  He referred to Caltrain and noted that the numbers have indicated that per dollar of subsidy you move more people a lot further with Caltrain. 

Mr. Aro noted that one of the things that came out of the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee was to look at re-doing VTA's Service Standards.  He noted that staff is in the process of working on the Service Standards and that the Service Standards would be forwarded to the committees during the month of October 2003 and then to the Board of Directors in November 2003.  Staff would be addressing the 25 percent farebox recovery, tightening up the standards, and raising the bar.  He noted as part of that, he would bring back the ridership information showing the current status of the routes.

Upon query of Member LeZotte, Mr. Ristow noted that the Board of Directors' Workshops to discuss VTP 2030 would be held on Friday, September 19, 2003, and October 10, 2003.

Member LeZotte referred to the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee Meeting and noted discussion of some of the issues regarding what happens if the 21 percent service reductions happen in January 2004.  She noted that representatives from the North and South County (Board Members Mossar and Springer) are very interested in getting information and having discussions about Caltrain.  A question was asked what would happen if VTA only did buses and not light rail as the next round of cuts.  She noted that the matters would be brought up at the upcoming Board of Directors' Workshops.

Mr. Ristow noted that staff would make sure the PAC Members are on the mailing list to receive Board of Directors' Agenda packets.

Member Brodsky directed attention to Attachment C - VTA Directly Operated, Contracted and Inter-Agency Services FY 2002 Cost Per Passenger, and queried about the conversion factors between ridership and users.  How many users of transit?  Mr. Aro noted that the information would be hard to extract from the information provided.  He noted that VTA conducts surveys asking transit riders what bus they would be boarding, would they be boarding another bus, and what is their final destination.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval suggested that Member Perry work with Mr. Aro regarding the information requested.  She noted that Member Perry raises a broader point, which is that the PAC is able to bring these points of discussion and really impact which lines the PAC thinks need support or maybe need to be cut as the next rounds go further.

Vice Chairperson Sandoval expressed concern regarding an article contained in the San Jose Mercury News, which indicated BART possibly not stopping anywhere on the eastside.  She noted that the ridership to support BART in this county would primarily come from the eastside.

Member Waltonsmith noted that sometimes we need to also add in what our variables are for judging, because it is not only total ridership, it is need.

Member Perry noted that as we look at this, some of our interagency obligations are certainly more cost effective for the VTA if not just flat out more effective.  He proposed that the Committee recommend that in this round we strengthen our obligations to the stronger portion, such as the Dumbarton Express, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Caltrain.

Mr. Wightman queried if the service cuts would be effective in January 2004. Mr. Ristow noted that staff cannot make an opinion and that it is with the courts right now.  He noted that the Board of Directors has taken action to bond against future 2000 Measure A revenue.  VTA is awaiting a decision and if the decision is favorable, then the service cuts can be deferred.  Mr. Aro noted that it has been challenged and will cause some possible delays.  He noted that VTA would be moving forward with the 21 percent cut or leave status quo, the current service in place.  If the court decision comes down in time and is in favor of VTA, the proposed three percent service reduction would be implemented. If the court decision is against VTA, the 21 percent service reduction would be implemented.

Member Perry noted that his sentiment is that in doing this round, we urge VTA to consider increasing our support of those interagency obligations, which seem like they are cost effective, such as the Dumbarton Express, ACE, and Caltrain.

Upon query of Chairperson Risch, the Committee agreed with sentiment.

Chairperson Risch requested that the Minutes reflect the Committee's sentiment and be directed to the Board of Directors.

Member Pirzynski requested that the Minutes reflect that the motion of August 14, 2003, requesting the analysis presented that it was presented, because it did ask for the interface of Caltrain and VTA.  He requested the item be brought back next month for further detailed discussion, so that the Committee can do its analysis of what the Caltrain/VTA interface is and to come back with a discussion as to whether we felt that the motion as presented by Member Perry and the information gathered thereby actually gives us some insight that we also want to recommend, specifically related to Caltrain.  He noted that the information presented tonight was very clear and clarified and that it did actually address the motion made at the August 14, 2003 Meeting.

Member Kishimoto requested that information be provided on the Bus Rapid Transit Project, especially for Line 22.

Member Kishimoto referred to the discussion heard about how we can feed into the VTP 2030 and discussion about going out for the 2006 bond and the priorities.  She queried how PAC can have more timely and useful impact into those decisions and is there a way we can look at future VTA budget items.  Mr. Ristow noted that discussions and information on the matters would be occurring at the upcoming series of Board of Directors' Workshops and Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee Meetings.  He suggested that PAC attend the Workshops and the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee Meetings. 

Vice Chairperson Sandoval expressed concern regarding a calendaring issue and noted that the Committee does not want to have to make a decision this week and then send it to the Board of Directors the following week.  She noted if PAC had a couple of meetings to mull things over, it would be better and would make PAC feel like they have more of an input.

Member Brodsky noted at many of the presentation meetings, PAC sees a partial section of the plan, there is never a discussion on the overall plan.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, a report regarding Transit Service was received.

Chairperson's Report

Vice Chairperson Sandoval noted that in informal discussions she has heard that the VTA Board is considering opening up its membership so that every city has a member on the VTA Board. She stated that to her it seems like a very big policy question that has not formally or informally been mentioned at the level of this body.  She requested that the matter be agendized at the meeting of October 9, 2003.

Mr. Ristow noted that the matter has not been discussed at the Board, and that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee has been formed to investigate the issue.  He noted that one meeting has been held the week of September 1, 2003.

Member Pirzynski noted that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee consists of himself, Board Members LaPoll, Gage, and Williams.  He noted that the Ad-Hoc Committee is doing some discovery on the formation of the Board.  The first meeting was strictly to find out what created the operation as it exists now.  He noted that the next meeting will be held on October 4, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. and that the meetings will always precede the Board Meetings.

Member Pirzynski noted that the intention of the Ad-Hoc Committee is merely to research the history and evolution of the Board as it exists and to evaluate the proposal that came from the City of Milpitas.  He referred to the length of time of the life of the Ad-Hoc Committee and noted that it could probably draw close next month or maybe November 2003. A report on the Ad-Hoc Committee would be forwarded to the PAC and then forwarded to the Board.

Mr. Ristow noted that the minutes from the Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting would be forwarded to the PAC.  Member Dixon noted that she would like to have it agendized for this Committee at the next meeting.  Member Perry noted it is important for us to have agendized early enough that we can make a meeting for recommendation.  It might not be time if we wait for the Ad-Hoc Committee to finish.

Upon query of Member Perry, Member Pirzynski noted that he would report back to PAC and noted that the minutes of the Ad-Hoc Committee should be forwarded to PAC.

Upon query of Mr. Ristow, Member Pirzynski requested that PAC receive a status or progress report at the next meeting.  Member Sandoval requested that the minutes of the Ad-Hoc Committee also be included.

Member Pirzynski noted that his understanding of the Ad-Hoc Committee is that it is more discovery than recommendation.  He noted there is a proposal on the table from the City of Milpitas indicating a greater degree of representation of each of the individual cities on the Board itself and a formulation of a proposed restructuring.  The Ad-Hoc Committee was led to interpret that the formulation of a proposed restructuring was subject to evolution, but the greater degree of representation of each of the individual cities was the real motivation behind the proposal in the first place.  An example already given, looking at PAC as representing all of the individual municipalities as an already existent group that perhaps needs to be refocused in relationship to how it can act in way that better precedes Board decision-making.  He noted that we need to take another look at PAC to determine what components are missing in our discussion and whether or not PAC is going to take a role that precedes the Board's action in a more substantive way than it has up to this point.  That would include things like agendas having sufficient distant from the Board decision so that things could really be worked through at this level and that the recommendations would not be levigated to the Board's willingness to the read the minutes.

Member Perry requested that the staff report include information on the possibility of direct elections along with a general topic of restructuring at the next meeting.

Member Kennedy referred to when VTA was created and noted that his recollection was that PAC was set-up to give those cities that did not have direct representation on the Board to have some policy-making capability and to be kept up abreast of what was going on.  He noted that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) also fed into this Committee and to the Board of Directors.  He noted that recently, this Committee has lost some of the ability to have a meaningful role in the process.  He noted that perhaps that is some of the frustration that the Cities of Milpitas and Morgan Hill are seeing.  He hopes that the City of Milpitas will give a presentation on their respective on why they brought this forward.

Legislative Report

Kurt Evans, Government Affairs Manager, reported that at the state level the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn at midnight tomorrow. 

Mr. Evans referred to transportation and provided a report on the commercial truck weight fees issue.   The issue has a direct impact on the State Highway Account, because commercial truck weight fees are deposited in the State Highway Account and that is the funding source for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).  He noted that back in 2000 the Legislature approved the bill that restructured commercial truck weight fees in an attempt to simply and make easier to implement.  The State Highway Accounts have been experiencing a lost of $160 million per year, since commercial truck weight fees restructured back in 2000.  This is a contributing factor to the cash-flow crunch that is being seen for STIP and State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects, at present.  The Legislature is trying to fix the problem and AB 1767 (Budget Committee) Truck Weight Fees, is the vehicle to do that and has been languishing on the Senate floor.  Mr. Evans noted that the proposal on the table right now is to increase commercial weight fees by 20 percent, which would generate about $100 million per year.

Mr. Evans provided a report on the California Highway Patrol (CHP) issue, noting that there is a $100 million shortfall for FY 2004.   To fix the problem, there will be an increase in some of the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) fees.

Mr. Evans noted that from a regional perspective, SB 916, the bill introduced by Senator Perata to put before the voters in March 2004 a $1 increase on toll bridges in the Bay Area to generate funding for transportation projects related to the bridges.   He noted that there is some funding in the expenditure plan for the BART extension to Warm Springs.  There is some capital as well as operating money for commuter rail service over the Dumbarton Bridge.  If the bridge toll passes, it would go into effect July 2004.

Mr. Evans reported that at the federal level, the expiration date for the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) is September 30, 2003.  He noted while all of the major in Congress and the White House agree that transit and highway programs need to grow, the major point of contention has been how much.  There is a range of proposals; the low end is a $247 billion six-year plan for highways and transit that was offered by the Administration.  The high end is a $375 billion six-year program that was offered by Chairman Don Young of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee.  The discussion is starting to shift away from a multi-year reauthorization bill to a short-term extension of   TEA-21.

Upon query of Member Kishimoto, Mr. Evans provided an update on the high- speed rail issue.

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

VTP 2020 Plan Implementation: Policies, Project Selection and Programming Criteria for the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 Sound Barrier Program

Mr. Ristow reported that the item is one of the programs that was in VTP 2020.  He noted with the enacting of Senate Bill 45 back in 1997, which evolved the decision-making of the STIP dollars down to the County level, and the decision-making on what soundwalls get programmed on state highways.  VTA needed to come up with a procedure, criteria and a prioritization process to be decided by the Board of Directors.

Marcella Rensi, Principal Transportation Planner, reported this is for retrofit noise barrier projects. There are stand-alone projects where no improvement is being done to the roadway. If an improvement was being done to the roadway, the improvement project would be tagged with the responsibility of dealing with sound mitigation. 

Ms. Rensi reported that the projects should be on freeways or expressways in Santa Clara County.  The projects need to be eligible for STIP funding and meet the basic noise criteria.  She directed attention to Attachment A - VTA Basic Noise Mitigation Standard and noted the proposed VTA standard.

Ms. Rensi directed attention to Attachment D - Project Scoring Criteria and provided an overview.

Member Perry noted that one criteria he did not see was the level of service on the adjacent roadway.  If there is reasonably efficient roadway, then would less likely have to move the soundwall.  How does that consideration get worked into this, so that we do not build a lot of soundwalls that have to be moved over 30 years.  Ms. Rensi responded the best that could be done is look at the overall countywide plan to see if there is an improvement project for the roadway being proposed.  Mr. Ristow noted that when looking at a freeway Caltrans has to approve what is called a Noise Barrier Summary Supplemental Report.  He noted that the soundwalls are usually put right on the property line and already at the widest part of the freeway.

Member Perry queried whether when looking at the initial feasibility for the noise barrier project, are they looking just at whether there is a proposed project or are they looking at the current road.  Mr. Ristow noted that VTA would get a good idea of the next 25 years worth of projects in the VTP 2030 update and would be matching up those kinds of improvements to a soundwall list.

Member Perry referred to ineligible projects and stated that projects that will be on a roadway which is to be widened should be ineligible.

Member Perry noted rather than a blanket 25 points for residential area, to look at how many people are within the area at 67 decibels or how many people are within a certain distant, but somewhere reflecting that you want a bigger soundwall where it does the most good, rather than a very low density.

Member Brodsky would like to see something that encourages artistic whimsy.

Member Perry recommended that 25 points be for cost effectiveness and 5 or 10 points for artistic whimsy.

M/S/C (Waltonsmith/LeZotte) to recommend that the Board of Directors adopt policies, project selection and programming criteria for the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP 2020) Sound Barrier Program; with the inclusion of some sentence about artistic creativity applied to the wall and to take into account the Severity of Need and Intensity of Need and include definition some sense of density.

Next Generation of State Highway Projects and Status of Current Corridor and Gateway Studies

Member Kennedy recommended that the item be returned to the October 9, 2003 Meeting and placed at the beginning of the Agenda.

Member LeZotte requested that both Agenda Items #8 and #9 be deferred to the October 9, 2003 Meeting and placed at the beginning of the Agenda.

M/S/C (LeZotte/Caserta) to defer the Next Generation of State Highway Projects and Status of Current Corridor and Gateway Studies to the October 9, 2003 Meeting. 

Proactive Congestion Management Program (CMP) Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report

M/S/C (LeZotte/Caserta) to defer the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Monthly Status Report to the October 9, 2003 Meeting.

Members Kennedy and Pirzynski left the meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Member Dixon left the meeting at 6:36 p.m., the quorum was lost,and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

Announcements

Member Brodsky noted the following quote contained in a cartoon article from todays Wall Street Journal: In times like these, we need to roll up our sleeves, rally together and find ourselves an escape goat".

Member Kishimoto referred to the question raised by the speaker under Public Presentations regarding the 2004 Measure A projects and queried about VTAs new budget which indicates a reduction in sales tax.   Mr. Ristow noted that a new sales tax in 2004 has not been decided by the Board of Directors.  He referred to the 2000 Measure A list of projects and noted that prioritization of the projects would be discussed at the upcoming Board of Directors Workshop.  Member Kishimoto noted that as projects, which affect all of the cities come up for discussion, that they be forwarded to PAC.

Members Sandoval and Caserta left the meeting at 6:37 p.m.

Adjournment

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

Respectfully submitted,

Tracene Y. Crenshaw, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

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