Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 4:12 p.m. by Chairperson Risch in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Dominic Caserta
Patricia Dixon
Dan Furtado
Dennis Kennedy
Yoriko Kishimoto
King Lear
Victor Ojakian
Greg Perry
Joe Pirzynski
Tim Risch, Chairperson
Ann Waltonsmith

Members Absent
Breene Kerr
Craig Gartman
Linda J. LeZotte
Dolores Sandoval, Vice Chairperson

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Minutes of October 9, 2003

M/S/C (Ojakian/Kishimoto) to approve the Minutes of October 9, 2003, as submitted. 

Nominating Committee for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2004

Chairperson Risch noted that tonights PAC Meeting was his last meeting and that Vice Chairperson Sandoval would be chairing the December 11, 2003 Meeting.

Upon query of Chairperson Risch, Members Kennedy, Perry, and Kishimoto volunteered to participate on the Nominating Committee for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2004.  Chairperson Risch requested that the Nominating Committee provide a report at the December 11, 2003 Meeting.

Michael P. Evanhoe, Chief Development Officer, reported that the standing procedure is that those Members interested in seeking the position of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson submit letters to the Nominating Committee.  He noted that it is assumed that the Nominating Committee would move Vice Chairperson Sandoval up to the position of Chairperson and that a Vice Chairperson would be needed.  Mr. Evanhoe noted that any Member who is interested in serving as Vice Chairperson could send the correspondence to the Board Secretarys Office, attention: Sandra Weymouth, and that she would provide the information to the Nominating Committee.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, Members Kennedy, Perry, and Kishimoto were appointed as the Nominating Committee for Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2004.

Committee Staff Report

Mr. Evanhoe reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has a Special Committee Meeting regarding their Regional Transportation Plan 2030 and noted that the Chairperson of the VTA Board of Directors would attend the Meeting.  He noted that he would leave tonights meeting at 5:30 p.m. to accompany the Chairperson at the MTC Meeting.  Mr. Evanhoe stated that John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, would serve as the Staff Liaison for the remainder of the PAC Meeting.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that VTA had a successful opening of the Interstate 880 Project at Brokaw Road.

Mr. Evanhoe reported at the request of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee Chairperson Francis La Poll, staff is attempting to schedule a meeting on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. to be held at the County of Santa Clara Building.

Member Furtado took his seat at 4:17 p.m.

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

The Agenda was taken out of order.

OTHER ITEMS

City of Milpitas Restructuring Proposal 

Mr. Evanhoe referred to the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee of November 6, 2003, and noted the conclusion was to continue discussion at another meeting.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that Supervisor Don Gage introduced an alternative proposal and noted that there may be a proposal coming from the City of San Jose as well.  He suggested that PAC devote more time pertaining to the Restructuring Proposal issue at their December 11, 2003 Meeting. 

Member Pirzynski reported that the decision of the last Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee Meeting was to continue, noting this was the recommendation made to the Board of Directors at their November 6, 2003 Meeting. 

Member Pirzynski reported that Member Dixon made a presentation and answered questions regarding the rationale for the proposed changes at the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Meeting of November 6, 2003.  Member Pirzynski reported that at the end of the meeting there was a general consensus of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee that at this point, given the input received, there did not seem to be sufficient reason or cause to create a wholesale change in the Board structure as it currently exists.  He noted, however, there were a number of items proposed for evaluation and possibly integration into some new options to the Board.  One was to look to a different set of City Groupings as the Groupings that occurred at the founding of the Board may no longer be as operable as was assumed.  Member Pirzynski reported that Supervisor Don Gage presented a proposal to breakout the City Groupings by size.  Member Pirzynski noted that the recommendation from the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee was to look to where there might be some shuffling of the cities in their groupings for greater congruence and greater association of needs given geography as well as size.

Member Pirzynski reported that another recommendation from the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee was definitely a re-evaluation of how we communicate among ourselves in City Groupings.  Another recommendation was to use alternates for each city, so that each city actually had a witness to the events and that would be inclusive of minutes and agenda as well as materials in order for persons to actually speak to its City Councils/County Council relative to the things that were on the table prior to decisions being made. 

Member Pirzynski reported that one of the factors discussed by PAC and confirmed again by the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee was the revitalization of PAC, the PACs role, specifically from a strategic sense prior to Board policy decisions.

Member Pirzynski reported that there was a proposal from a member of the public that the Board be disbanded as it exists and that a Board be created based strictly on election by the public based on supervisory districts.

Member Pirzynski reported that the result of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee Meeting was that there needed to be more discussion, which was affirmed by the Board of Directors at their November 6, 2003 Meeting.  He noted that he was in agreement with Mr. Evanhoe that perhaps it would be better that PAC not do a prolong analysis until the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee has a chance to finish its work next week and revisit matter in December 2003.

Mr. Evanhoe noted in terms of timing, because Chairperson La Poll requested a meeting be scheduled next week, and in terms of flushing out all of the alternatives that are not on the table, getting them back to PAC to have a fruitful discussion and if the City of San Jose is in fact going to put a proposal on the table, it is suggested that tonights discussion be deferred, so that everything could be placed in front of the PAC.

Member Perry commented that PAC has been putting off this discussion for some time and noted he is sure that there would be continued discussions for several months.  He stated that PAC should make an effort to weigh in, think about the issues.  He noted for PAC to say we are going to wait until there is a final recommendation from the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee before trying to have input in the process, it affectedly yields the PAC.  He noted that to have input in the process, PAC should talk about it now and see if there is any consensus or if there are some ideas to be placed on the table, rather than waiting for everything to be done.

Mr. Evanhoe clarified that no final action has been taken.  He noted that staff wanted to flush out all of the issues, what comes next week and what comes from the City of San Jose, and then at the PAC December 11, 2003 Meeting have an open discussion of all of the alternatives. 

Member Pirzynski reported that the result of the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee Meeting last week was to ask staff to review each option and start to flush out possible responses, to weigh and to evaluate.  Member Pirzynski noted the preference to have good analysis done at staff level before jumping to any kind of evaluation for decision-making.  He noted that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee is still currently in the discovery phase, and if going according to protocol, once the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee receives analysis from staff, then staff would come to the table and say here is what we have so far, and then the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee would be disbanded and at that point it would be for this body and for the Board to discuss procedures from there.

Member Kennedy commented that perhaps one way to get input into the process is individually or as cities.  That is one way to get your request on record.  He expressed concern that the process as it looks like it is happening, is that the subcommittee will report to the Board, and unless the process has changed, the Board will make a decision without PAC having a meaningful opportunity to discuss that decision.  Somehow the process needs to change, so that the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee reports to PAC and provides an opportunity to weigh in on the decision before it goes to the Board.

Member Pirzynski commented that he does not have any impression that PAC will be ignored or denied opportunity for input prior to the Board decision.  As a matter of fact, he does not see this decision as something coming in the next two months.  He thinks this is going to be a relatively lengthy process, because there is legislative work to be done if there is significant change.

Member Kishimoto referred to the timing and expressed concern about PAC having the opportunities to have a scoping session and being able to raise an alternative, recommendation.

Member Kennedy noted that he, Members Brodsky and Dixon attended the last subcommittee meeting and noted that there is an opportunity to speak.  He noted that the sense he had the way the vote was handled, the vote was made, the decisions and comments were made and it went straight to the Board of Directors with the PAC not even in the loop.

Member Pirzynski noted there was a request from the Board for a report back.  The motion that went back to the Board was to allow the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee to continue its work.

Chairperson Risch noted that the question now is do we want to have the discussion now or do we want to delay until next month with the understanding that we would have more information and that Member Pirzynski would take back to the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee that the PAC wants to be in the loop and that Member Pirzynski would be PACs messenger and recommend that nothing goes directly to the Board and if it does, it is with the caveat that PAC should weigh in first before any Board decision.

Member Brodsky noted he wants to make sure that we get a full discussion next time in addition to do the analysis. 

Member Perry commented that he did not think Members came an hour earlier to delay everything by a month.

M/S/C (Pirzynski/Caserta) on a vote of 9 ayes to 1 noe to 0 abstentions to delay the discussion until December 11, 2003, with the understanding that PAC would have more information and that Member Pirzynski would take back to the Ad-Hoc Restructuring Proposal Committee that the PAC wants to be in the loop and that Member Pirzynski would be PACs messenger and recommend that nothing goes directly to the Board, and if it does, it is with the caveat that PAC should weigh in first before any Board decision.  Member Perry opposed.

Upon query of Member Ojakian, Member Pirzynski noted that input is taken from the public and that suggestions could be forwarded to him.

Chairperson Risch requested staff communicate to the Board PACs certain interest in making sure that PAC is able to comment before any proposal prior to the Board making any decision.

VTA Board of Directors November 7, 2003 Workshop Meeting

Mr. Evanhoe reported that a Board of Directors Workshop Meeting was held on Friday, November 7, 2003.  One of the items was to begin the discussion of prioritization of projects for the next Countywide Transportation Plan Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2030 as well as input to the Regional Plan 2030.

Mr. Evanhoe reported that there would be a series of Board of Directors Workshop Meetings to be held on January 30, 2004, February 27, 2004, March 19, 2004 and April 23, 2004 to discuss prioritization for the delivery of transit projects in 2000 Measure A and prioritization for state highway, county expressway projects, local streets and roads.

Member Brodsky noted one thing that is very important when looking at priorities; how we rate a priority is based upon a criteria.  He referred to the November 7, 2003 Workshop Meeting Agenda Packet, document entitled Transit Project Prioritization Criteria and noted that a certain amount of potential weighting has been assigned for each of the criteria.  He noted that the smallest weighting is funding and it seems to be missing some other elements.  The criteria looks like it is definitely outdated, and it seems like this distorts utility.  There is no utility usage per dollar.  Since financing and funding is our number one issue, 90 percent of this ignores costing.  Member Brodsky noted that this is going to be one of the critical areas to be discussed: what should be the priority, what should be the weighting system to prioritize the 15 projects.  Mr. Evanhoe noted at the time VTA adopted VTP 2020 in December 2000, the Board of Directors instructed staff to come back in 2001 with a prioritization.  The prioritization process was established in 2001.  Mr. Evanhoe noted that Member Brodsky is suggesting that given current circumstances, perhaps the prioritization process needs to be reevaluated.

Member Perry referred to a document contained in the November 7, 2003 Workshop Meeting Agenda Packet, which was the division of projects in tiers.  He noted that BART and Downtown East Valley were both in Tier 1, with the exception of bus service at the bottom of Tier 1.  He commented that there is not enough money for BART and Downtown East Valley, and expressed concern that all of the cities projects are in Tiers 2 and 3.  He noted that we need to have a strong input into this process or otherwise it is going to be nothing for any of our cities.

Upon query of Member Kishimoto, Mr. Evanhoe noted that the process for developing all of the project priorities for VTP 2030 would come through all of the VTA committees.

Chairperson Risch referred to local streets and road and queried if funding was $50 million.  Mr. Evanhoe noted that the funding was more and that VTA received all of the projects from all of the cities and the projects have been scored.  VTA is in the process of responding to the cities.  He noted that the priorities for local streets and roads would also be coming through PAC.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, a report on the VTA Board of Directors November 7, 2003 Workshop Meeting was received. 

Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson's Report.

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GENERAL MANAGER

VTA Fare Policy

David Sausjord, Revenue Services Manager, reported that the VTA Fare Policy was presented to the Committees in October 2003.  He noted that some material has been added to the packet in response to a request from the Transit Planning and Operations (TP&O) Committee.

Mr. Sausjord directed attention to the Board Memorandum, Attachments B Fare Pricing Implications of Proposed Fare Policy, C Fare Pricing Implications of Proposed Fare Policy, and D Summary of VTA Transfer Arrangements with Adjoining and Overlapping Transit Operators.  The specific request for Attachment B was for staff to provide information as to what the implications on VTAs fare pricing would be if VTA were to apply the fare policy principles that are contained in the proposed Fare Policy, assuming the existing adult fares that VTA has to date.  The policy basically attempts to factor the youth and senior/disabled fares off of the adult fares using the percentages of discounts, etc. to guide future fare structure decisions.  He noted there is rounding that happens when doing this, because one of the other policies was that VTA wanted the cash fares to be in increments of a quarter, except for the seniors.  When applying the principles, VTA finds that there are some changes particularly on the youth fares and on the senior fares.  The cash fares would not be affected, but the youth day pass would decrease a quarter, the monthly pass would increase, the senior/disabled day pass would increase 50 cents, and the senior/disabled monthly pass would increase $8. 

Mr. Sausjord noted it has been clarified in the narrative that when computing a discount fare and a certain percentage discount off of an adult fare, VTA would basically calculate it off of unrounded values.  The pass multiples for the day pass and the monthly pass are essentially retained and all of the fares are essentially even ratios of the adult fare.  The senior/disabled monthly pass would be $26.25, which is half of the current adult monthly pass fare of $52.50. 

Mr. Sausjord noted it was taken further to say what would happen if VTA raised the fare to $1.75, which would be the logical next step if VTA were increasing its cash fares in 25 cents increments.  He directed attention to Attachment C and noted that the youth cash fare remained the same, because essentially today, VTA is a little bit less than the rate of discount because of rounding.  If VTA could increase the adult cash fare with the 25 percent discount rate for the youth, which is called for in the policy, and if doing an exact calculation, it would be $1.31.  But essentially where currently VTA would be in a rounding up situation with a $1.75 adult fare, you would round down for the youth, which would stay at a $1.25.

Mr. Sausjord directed attention to Attachment D and noted it provided a summary of fare arrangements for riders transferring between VTA and other transit operators.  He noted that the attachment shows that VTA has reciprocal arrangements with other bus operators wherein VTA provides a base fare credit, which means a free local ride or a partial fare credit if getting onto one of VTAs express services, to someone coming off of another bus operator and transferring onto VTAs system.   And essentially the other transit operators also provide the same equivalent privilege to riders getting off of VTA services and boarding their services, and this applies to SamTrans, AC Transit, Highway 17 Express, and the Dumbarton Express service.  The rail operators are consistent in that none of them provide any credit or discount for riders transferring from our system, either bus or light rail, onto other rail operators.  VTA provides unique arrangements in each case; VTA does provide some credit to riders of those services.

Upon query of Member Kishimoto, Mr. Sausjord noted that Caltrain has the same policy vis a vis SamTrans and San Mateo County, basically exactly the same as VTA. 

Member Perry referred to the monthly passes and noted that a couple of counties go with a multiple of 40 rather than 35 and queried was there any discussion of where to go with a 35 multiple versus something a little bit higher.  Mr. Sausjord noted that the policy actually does not specify what the specific multiple would be, rather it be the day pass multiple or the monthly pass multiple.  He noted that the version presented in October 2003, had a policy that for all of the different categories of riders they would be exactly the same.  He noted it has been removed from the version presented tonight and noted that it would be a discount off of the adult fare.  Mr. Sausjord noted that the policy does not bind or commit the Agency to any particular multiple, although the existing multiples for the adult riders are showing in the examples.

Member Perry referred to AC Transit, SamTrans, Sacramento and Santa Cruz and noted that all of the agencies have cash fares of $1.50 or less, and they all have monthly passes of $60 or less.  They are dealing with roughly the same amount of revenue, yet they have significantly higher revenue per boarding than VTA.  Member Perry asked what is the reason for this.  Mr. Sausjord referred to the chart contained in the Agenda Packet indicating that VTA is at $0.59.  He indicated that VTA is currently higher and that VTA has had two fare increases in the last two years.  VTA was approximately $0.63 in 2003 and is now currently over $.70.

Member Brodsky referred to Attachments A and D and queried what are the top five fare definitions in terms of volume usage/in terms of frequency.  Mr. Sausjord noted that VTAs ridership has been about 1/3 cash, 1/3 day pass, 1/3 monthly pass or ECO Pass.  The day pass has declined.  In terms of adult, youth, express, express is extremely small.

Member Brodsky queried between adult, youth, and senior/disabled what would be the breakdown.  Mr. Sausjord noted that the adult is definitely the larger category and between youth, senior/disabled VTA is fairly close. 

Member Perry directed attention to Attachment A and noted that all of the bars contained in the third column (Operating Cost per Hour) are short.  This is because all of VTAs peer groups have lower cost per revenue mile than VTA.  He noted the real difference is if you look at the number of people that VTA hires to put a bus on the road for one hour.  Right now, to put a bus on the road for an hour, takes VTA 3.15 employee hours.  Six years ago, it took VTA 2.4.  The National Average right now using median as 1.9, using median as 2.0, by any measure, it takes VTA more than 50 percent more employees to do the same work as Chicago Transit Authority, Atlanta, and New York City.  He commented that we are talking about this three-legged stool and for some reason the only leg that we ever get a hold of is fares.  Rather than go along and say one more step on fares, lets find out why we have 3.15 employees to do what the average transit agency in the country can do in 1.9.

Member Waltonsmith took her seat at 5:02 p.m.

Member Lear took his seat at 5:04 p.m.

Chairperson Risch noted it is clear that the report says there are three legs that have to be dealt with and one is looking at fares as one of the three ways to help improve the situation.

Member Kishimoto directed attention to the VTA Fare Policy, Page 1 of 7, I. Introduction: Purpose and Goal, Item A., and recommended that the wording be changed as follows:  The purpose of the VTA Board of Directors Fare Policy is to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable relationship between the VTA fares (average fare per boarding), ridership productivity (boardings per hour) and cost efficiency (cost per hour).

Member Pirzynski noted that he does not think there is any question that staff has made it clear that each leg of this particular stool needs to be adjusted, reevaluated, and the various components enhanced for the health of the organization.  He noted that Item #7 is to specifically address the Fare Policy and appreciates the fact that staff has in front of us information that allows us to get our arms around fare policy as such.  He noted that he thinks one of the issues in the past is that we have not been diligent in increasing fares in an appropriate timing, so that a fare increase does not seem as onerous if its been given in smaller increments.  He commented that he is very comfortable with the way the Fare Policy is being presented.  It has been well worked and could not find fault in any substantive way with the proposal as its presented.

Member Brodsky queried without any change in ridership, what would be the farebox recovery.  If it is only going to affect from 11 percent to 12 percent to a 13 percent, then he would have to think that we are moving 50 percent of the component of the highest cost of operating costs from the equation as a 30 percent increase in farebox recovery, not just a 10 or 15 percent.  Based upon this, what percentage, more money does VTA expect to get in more farebox change with just doing this?  Mr. Sausjord noted that a major thrust of this is to establish a schedule and sort of a policy and intent that VTA will be doing the fare increases.  The pricing principles in terms of the discounts in part is intended to simplify the process by focusing the decision-making on essentially if we could decide how much we are going to increase the adult fare.  The decision in terms of how aggressively the fares would be changed is not contained here.

Member Pirzynski commented that this is a discussion of policy to provide a consistent methodology.

Member Dixon commented on the amount of time the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee spent, noting that experts were brought in and charts were reviewed.  She noted that we became painfully aware that not every transit district looks the same for very good reasons.  She noted that there has been a problem over the years when times were good, the Board said do not raise the fares.  She noted that this is just the beginning and is glad that we are finally to this point.

Member Caserta left the meeting at 5:21 p.m.

M/S/C (Pirzynski/Dixon) that in having reviewed the Fare Policy as proposed that the PAC feels it appropriate and wishes to recommend the Fare Policy to the Board.  The Committee recommended that the wording contained in the VTA Policy, Page 1 of 7, Introduction: Purpose and Goal, Item A., be changed as follows: The purpose of the VTA Board of Directors Fare Policy is to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable relationship between the VTA fares (average fare per boarding), ridership productivity (boardings per hour) and cost efficiency (cost per hour).

Member Perry noted that there are three legs to the stool; revenue per boarding, we are at the median; boardings per hour, we are at the median, operating cost per hour, we are at three standard deviations above the median.  He understands that there has been much talk of a three-legged stool, but has yet to see someone bring a screwdriver anywhere near that third leg.  Member Perry proposed that for the next meeting PAC agendize an in-depth discussion of why VTAs operating cost per hour is as high as it is, using the materials, which have been prepared for the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee.

Member Kennedy expressed concern regarding the amount of time that could be spent on the issue and noted that he does not think it is a fruitful use of PACs time, because PACs role is policy.  He noted that Member Perry could work with staff to get information and that he would rather focus on bigger policy issues.

Member Perry noted that the reason he brings this issue forward is because it has not been addressed.  He noted that he read the recommendations from the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee and he could not see anything in the recommendations, which he felt had a prayer of getting to the core of the problem.

Upon query of Member Kennedy, Member Perry noted that the discussion would take about a 1/2 hour.

Member Pirzynski commented that he was curious about what is the policy that we are going to direct ourselves toward.  Because if we are talking about micro-managing the operation of the organization, he would admit to lack of expertise in terms of how that occurs, but is well aware given Member Dixons involvement and also reviewed the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committees reports.  If the 1/2 hour is going to spent in discussing the micro issues of the transit organization, then he has difficulty in that time utilization.  If it has a greater macro kind of focus, then it may have merit.  He would like to see us know what we are trying to accomplish, particularly in the area of policy.

Member Ojakian noted if the motion failed, he would suggest that staff come back with some sort of an informational report that gives PAC an opportunity to look at maybe some of the issues and decide if PAC would like to discuss.

Member Kishimoto commented that the topic does have policy implication.  She noted that PAC is accountable to answering questions from the public about VTAs operating cost per hour.

Member Dixon noted that the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee in no way, shape or form, came up with concrete solutions.  We spent ten months going over and over and over everything and out of the ten months we have forwarded onto the Board at least 19 major areas to be looked at and noted would be addressed.

Mr. Evanhoe noted that staff could bring back the 19 recommendations as a starting point of discussion and then have the organizational structure as the main focus of discussion.

M/S/F (Perry/Kennedy) on a vote of 5 ayes to 6 noes to 0 abstentions, to agendize for next month an in-depth discussion of why VTAs operating cost per hour is as high as it is, using the materials, which have been prepared for the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee.  Members Dixon, Furtado, Ojakian, Waltonsmith, Pirzynski and Risch opposed.

Member Ojakian requested that staff provide PAC with an informational report that gives a summary of what the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee has done and maybe has a section that suggests any of the policy issues that were considered.

Chairperson Risch referred to the letter that PAC received from Jane P. Kennedy, Chairperson of the Board of Directors, which indicated a concern regarding the amount of staff time spent on special reports.  He asked Mr. Evanhoe if staff could provide the information.  Mr. Evanhoe noted that staff could bring back the 19 recommendations from the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee and then PAC could decide future things and then we would have to assess staff capability.

M/S/C (Ojakian/Kennedy) to request that staff provide PAC with an informational report that gives a summary of what the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee has done and maybe has a section that suggests any of the policy issues that were considered.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the proposed Fare Policy addressing both recovery ratio and pricing/structure goals for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Service Management Plan

Mike Aro, Service and Operations Planning Deputy Director, reported that VTA has always used service standards, guidelines and policies to plan, evaluate, and modify service.  He reported that the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee recommended that VTA update and codify the policies and guidelines due to VTAs financial situation.     Mr. Aro reported that one of the legs of the stool is riders per hour, and it was also recommended that the service standards should address target and minimum acceptable measures of productivity by route and service type to improve system efficiency.

Mr. Aro noted that the Service Management Plan is presented in four parts.  He provided an overview of the four parts, highlighting: 1) Part 1 Service Area/Transit Network; 2) Part 2 Service Design Guidelines, 3) Part 3 Service Evaluation Policy; and 4) Part 4 Service Change Process.

Mr. Aro directed attention to the Service Management Plan, Appendix B Examples Regular Route Evaluation Process and provided a brief overview of the following: 1) Primary Grid Routes Productivity Boardings Per Revenue Vehicle Hour; 2) Secondary Grid Routes Productivity Boardings Per Revenue Vehicle Hour; and 3) Feeder Routes Productivity Boardings Per Revenue Vehicle Hour. 

Member Perry noted his concern was that we are calling things primary grid routes, secondary grid routes and feeder routes.   When asked, we do not really have the data to justify the name feeder.  He noted by separating things into categories what we are doing is kind of giving a pass on the things we call feeders; that we are not looking at them as critically as we are at the other buses .  He recommended that all buses be analyzed together rather than separating them into categories.

Member Brodsky noted he appreciated that VTA was going to focus on time efficiencies, particularly for commuters, because that is the largest target market, and he would like to see that as part of our service design guidelines.

Member Brodsky noted he would like to look at successful design network alternatives, including a multiple hub and spoke system for this Valley.   He distributed a document entitled Is Our Network Design Wrong?.  He noted that we have a 14-mile an hour service.  A Silicon Manufacturing Group study indicates that time efficiency is the single largest requirement to increase farebox return.  Various reports indicate that 3 to 5 percent is VTAs usage factor.  The goal would have to be is that we are supposed to get a certain percentage of ridership into transit for two reasons, it is good for everybodys health and it will eventually reduce congestion.  He understands that we have an 80 percent turnover in three years, because most of the people using transit are either very lucky with a perfect route or just do not have a drivers license or is waiting for their drivers license.  He noted that he gets complaints from a lot of people about the time it takes of the various routes and the broken connections, and the bottom line is the 11 percent farebox return.  If we need to get to a higher level, we should look outside the box.

Member Brodsky noted that the hub and spoke is the most successful way.  There are multiple hubs and spokes on our airlines, because that is the way they make the most money to move the most amount of people.  He noted to the single largest requirement to increase farebox return, and believes that we should evaluate the hub and spoke network as a portion of our VTA service.  He directed attention to Page 3 of the document, Modify Service Design Guidelines to Evaluate a Network of HOV Lane/High Speed Spokes, and noted if we can say that we would like to evaluate it as part of our policy, and to modify our Service Design Guidelines to do that, he believes that we already have the spokes in place.  He noted that we have one of the best HOV networks in the world.  What is missing is the ability to put together the building of stations.  In our Service Design Guidelines, lets use our resources.  Our number one resource that is under-utilized is our high-speed spokes.  Member Brodsky noted that he would like to make another presentation in January or February 2004 on what a policy statement could be to enable that to be built tax-free giving money to the cities, but that is a developer issue further down the road. 

Member Brodsky noted what he would like to see in the Service Guidelines is recognition of our high-speed network now and a recognition that they could look at how open we can regulate the HOT lanes from getting congested.   Lets utilize our best time efficiency, which are our HOVs.

Member Brodsky recommended that VTA look into services, focusing on efficiency of time for commuters and that VTA evaluate network design alternatives, including multiple hub and spoke using the HOV network.

Chairperson Risch asked that staff comment on putting Member Brodskys recommendations immediately into the Plan.  John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, noted that the item was not an action item tonight, it was only to provide some information as to what VTA was developing as the service plan.

Upon query of Mr. Ristow, Mr. Aro noted that the Service Management Plan would be forwarded to the VTA Standing Committees next week and then to the Board of Directors in December 2003.

Mr. Aro noted that he would prefer to keep moving forward with the Service Management Plan as is and to look at Member Brodskys recommendations separately.  He noted that the Service Management Plan is a living document and would be brought back for review and possible changes.

Member Brodsky directed attention to the Service Management Plan, Page 2-1, Part 2 Service Design Guidelines, and recommended that the following additional items be added as bulleted items:   1) VTA will develop services which focus on time efficiency of commuters and 2) VTA would evaluate design alternatives, including hub and spoke for the HOV network.

Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, noted that he agrees with trying to improve our efficiencies and time delivery.  VTA cannot focus on one type of ridership right now and noted that there is a whole cadre of customers to serve.  Mr. Cipolla encourages review of other types of delivery systems.

Chairperson Risch commented that instead of saying focus could say include or consider, because he thinks that there are a whole lot of other things that feed in, not just time, there is coverage of routes and coordination with other services.

Member Pirzynski noted that he is looking at this particular document and he is seeing a clear reflection of things that are resonant from the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee to propose ways and standards and guidelines for evaluating and modifying service.  He directed attention to the Board Memorandum, Page 1, Discussion, and quoted the following statement contained in the first paragraph:  As new type of services are added, or as circumstances warrant, this document will be modified to maintain its usefulness as a planning and evaluation tool.  He noted that he thinks what Member Brodsky is saying is that he would like other issues  not seen on the table yet to be brought to the table.  Member Pirzynski noted that he would like to see some kind of core shuttle service developed for the communities of Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Saratoga.  That would be the most useful new response to the real needs of our community.  He would like to see VTA look to those core communities, those core downtowns in effect, that have been identified within our Agency, and begin to process ways to implement those kind of services within those cores.  He commented that maybe there should be a session to brainstorm ideas rather than to try to include a specific plan or specific mechanism for transit not seen currently in our communities, in this particular document itself.

Member Brodsky directed attention to the Draft Service Management Plan, Page 2.1,    Part 2 Service Design Guidelines, third bullet item, and requested that the word Maintain be changed to Improve.

M/S/C (Brodsky/Ojakian) to request that staff make the following change on Page 2.1 of the Draft Service Management Plan, Part 2 Service Design Guidelines, third bullet item:  change the word Maintain to Improve.

M/S/F (Perry/Brodsky) on a vote of 2 ayes to 9 noes to 0 abstentions to recommend that the Service Management Plan be changed to reflect putting all buses into the same category and weighing them against each other with the current allowances for trips to hospitals and all of that in regional coverage, and also doubling the amount of the count of an express bus boardings per hour to reflect the fact that revenue per boarding on an express is also doubled.  Members Risch, Waltonsmith, Kishimoto, Ojakian, Lear, Pirzynski, Kennedy, Furtado and Dixon opposed.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the Service Management Plan.

Member Perry left the meeting at 6:26 p.m.

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Status Report From Monthly to Quarterly Basis

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Status Report from Monthly to Quarterly Basis was received and filed.

2003 Congestion Management Program

Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner, directed attention to the document entitled 2003 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Santa Clara County, Review Draft November 2003, and noted that if PAC had any comments, to forward them to the Board Secretarys Office.

Chairperson Risch directed attention to the 2003 CMP document, Pages 2-6 through 2-9, Table 2.1 Intersection Level of Service (LOS), 1991-2002, and queried if the intersection are broken out by a.m. or p.m.  Mr. Augenstein noted that it is broken out in the Monitoring and Conformance Report, which was previous brought to the PAC.

Upon Chairperson Risch, Mr. Augenstein reported that the 2003 CMP document would be forwarded to the Board of Directors at their December 4, 2003 Meeting and informed PAC to provide any comments as soon as possible.

Mr. Ristow reported that the 2003 CMP document is updated every two years and noted that the document contains some revisions.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and commented on the 2003 Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP).

OTHER (continued)

Announcements

Member Dixon thanked Chairperson Risch for his leadership over the past year, noting that Chairperson Risch has been a gracious Chair.  Chairperson Risch noted that it has been his pleasure to serve with such an outstanding group of public servants.

On order of Chairperson Risch, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 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.

NOTE:   M/S/F MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED.