|
Preliminary Tasman East/Capitol Bus/Rail Service Integration Plan
 Chairperson Sandoval reported that she intended to send e-mail to Ms. Gonot and Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, with suggestions to move toward less paper being distributed.
Member King noted that she weighed the amount of paper received from VTA in the past two-weeks it was approximately six-pounds.
Mike Aro, Service and Operations Planning Deputy Director, reported that this extension is scheduled to open for revenue service on June 30, 2004 in time for the Fourth of July holiday. This extension begins at Baypointe Station goes to the Great Mall in Milpitas and runs along Capitol Avenue to Alum Rock Station in San Jose.
Mr. Aro reported the proposed integration plan will be reviewed at five community meetings in addition to review by all the Board advisory and standing committees. The final recommendation will incorporate input from the community and the committees for final approval by the Board of Directors later this spring.
The integration plan is the light rail operating plan that also defines bus routing and service levels adjustments associated with this extension. Mr. Aro reviewed the bus routes in the corridor that would be modified due to duplication within the new light rail service. He explained that new feeder routes shuttles would be introduced and some existing routes would be modified. Focal points for the integration of the bus system are three key transit centers: 1) Great Mall Transit Center, 2) Penetencia Creek Transit Center, and 3) Alum Rock Transit Center.
Mr. Aro reviewed current light rail operation with the three existing light rail lines: 1) Guadalupe, 2) Tasman, and 3) Almaden Shuttle. He stated VTA has always considered the Tasman East/Capitol line a simple extension of the Tasman West line, however, in an effort to maximize service delivery and operating efficiency, VTA proposes linking the Tasman West/Capitol line with the Guadalupe line.
Mr. Aro reviewed the rationale for this proposal noting that the operating scenario can and will be revisited if conditions change. The rail system has been designed to accommodate operations changes.
Member Perry suggested that VTA look at: 1) switching the routing of lines 36 & 62 on Berryessa and Mabury to make both more direct, 2) having every other train on the new extension alternate between the Mountain View and Guadalupe light rail lines, 3) taking advantage of the new light rail line on Capitol Avenue, consider eliminating parallel service on Lines 70 & 71.
Member Perry noted that it would be more convenient for passengers to get on at Alum Rock and be able to go through to Mountain View instead of the train turning south at Baypointe Station.
Member King asked if PAC gets into the level of policy that decides which bus goes where.
Chairperson Sandoval asked how many people/organizations have reviewed the plan and determined it is the best level of service. Mr. Aro responded that the plan was reviewed with the City of Milpitas, the City of Santa Clara, and the City of Mountain View as well as with the public through many public meetings.
Ms. Gonot explained that regarding the trips along the new corridor it is believed that customers will be better served by 15-minute headways along the Guadalupe Corridor. She noted that to carry 15-minute headways over to the Tasman Corridor where it is not needed would result in operating losses rather than savings. Ms. Gonot stated that there is option for change in the future if necessary however this action makes sense from the operational cost savings point of view.
Dean Chu, City of Sunnyvale, said he believed that Member Perry is suggesting that half of the lines on the Tasman East would run all the way across from East to West preserving the 30-minute headways and the other half, although it would be more complicated to schedule, would run back and forth from Baypointe to Santa Teresa and that would preserve 15-minute headways on the Guadalupe Line and 30-minute headways on the Tasman Line. Mr. Chu noted that the Transportation staff of Sunnyvale agrees with the idea. He also noted that Sunnyvale staff asked how the need for two-car trains on the Tasman East Line is determined and suggested that one-car trains be used initially to see if it is feasible noting that running half of the trains as one-train cars across to Tasman West would probably result in cost savings.
Mr. Aro said that one of the issues with that scenario would be that it would create alternating service and he was not sure that a 4-minute layover schedule at Baypointe could be maintained if trains are run all the way through.
Member Glickman noted the issue that Member King raised and being a new member also wanted to understand the role of PAC and wanted to know what entity would focus on the details such as where buses go if not PAC?
Chairperson Sandoval said that she thought that all of the other committees that the plan had gone through would have focused on details. She expressed concern that a timing issue remained to be worked out because the target to roll out the plan is June 2004. She noted that the plan had received input from community groups and there had been discussions where the cities theoretically had already provided input to the proposal. She noted that at some point a plan needs to be created and then carried forward and implemented. She noted PAC is struggling with balancing policy with micro management and that was why she distributed the background information earlier. Chairperson Sandoval suggested different groups need to talk about the detailed work. She stated that at the West Valley Mayors and Managers Meetings the cities get together and discuss VTA issues and noted that she is not aware of any other city grouping that discuss VTA issues in any depth. She suggested that PAC is not the only body that should be discussing VTA priorities, policy, and projects that are coming down the pipeline and in a two-hour meeting we should not be expected to be the only body that discusses these issues in full. This does not mean we should shirk our responsibility and feel like we cannot ask questions but at some point we must move on.
Member Glickman noted that if light rail is supplanting what previously was entirely bus he questioned if it was appropriate to think of the nearby bus routes as feeders because if that were the case he assumed they would not run parallel but across to feed into the new line. Mr. Aro responded that the perpendicular lines were feeder routes and the other lines serve the area adjacent to the rail line in an attempt to provide service coverage throughout the County.
Member Kennedy responded to Member King´s earlier question regarding the role of PAC and recalled, being a member who has served on PAC over many years, that PAC has always wrestled with how much time to devote to the issues and what is policy versus detail. He said some cities have transportation staff but some do not, therefore this is often the only opportunity to address some of these issues. He noted that PAC is supposed to be devoted to policy but sometimes it makes sense to get into this kind of details because it might be the only opportunity as a city to address these issues. He noted that imposing time limits on these types of issues or some sort of prioritization schedule for the agenda might be in order.
Member Kerr noted that the comments regarding parallel routes does relate to policy. He said that if the feeder system has been adopted on the east side then why not implement the feeder system on the west side?
Member King noted that the City of Saratoga has a small staff also but believes if there are concerns regarding an item it should go back to City staff.
Member LeZotte noted that PAC is the only place that all 15 cities have a chance to look at issues. She stated that as policy makers it is important that all members comment and go back to their staff for discussion and then return to PAC with additional questions and or comments. With regard to parallel bus routes she said she did not believe it is the intent of the Tasman East/Capitol Extension to supplant parallel bus routes from the east side as that is a most transit dependent population. She noted for example, to have a student who is currently taking Bus Line 77 to get to school it is not feasible to take a feeder up to light rail and then take a feeder back down. She noted that the parallel bus routes are meant to serve multiple purposes and that many of the parallel bus routes will always carry more passengers than the light rail. She believes that the intent is to attract passengers to use the light rail to get to other parts of the county.
Member Brodsky referring to the PAC Bylaws and VTA´s Vision and Mission Statement argued that that discussion regarding how the bus routes integrate with the light rail line is policy issue.
Member Kennedy returned to his seat at 5:32 p.m.
On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Preliminary Tasman East/Capitol Bus/Rail Service Integration Plan was reviewed.
Member Kerr returns to his seat at 5:34 p.m.
| 
Rider's Links 
