CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Chairperson Sandoval in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Kathleen King
Dominic Caserta
Yoriko Kishimoto, Vice Chairperson
Paul Correa
Linda J. LeZotte
Dean Chu
Victor Ojakian
Dan Furtado
Greg Perry
Steve Glickman
Althea Polanski
Dennis Kennedy
Dolores Sandoval, Chairperson

Members Absent
Breene Kerr
King Lear

A quorum was present.

Public Presentation

There were not Public Presentations.

Minutes of December 11, 2003

M/S/C (Ojakian/Kishimoto) to approve the Minutes of December 11, 2004.

Minutes of February 12, 2004

M/S/C (Ojakian/Kishimoto) on a vote of 11 ayes 0 noes and 3 abstentions, to approve the Minutes of February 12, 2004 with a request from Member Brodsky for more detail regarding his discussion about operating cost, and a request from Member Chu to reflect that he was present (pending confirmation). Members Furtado, Chu, and Ojakian abstained.

Committee Staff Report

There was no Committee Staff Report.

Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson's Report.

Summary of VTA Actions to Achieve Financial Stability (Deferred from the February 12, 2004 PAC Meeting)

Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager, distributed a Board Memorandum entitled "Operating Cost Per Total Hour". Mr. Cipolla reported that operating cost comparisons are strictly limited to direct operations of a system. He pointed out that the National Transit Database (NTD) recognizes that there are distinct differences in transit systems and cautioned against using the data for system-to-system comparison. Mr. Cipolla noted that the NTD includes the following statement in the publication titled Final Data Tables for the 2002 Report Year, Chapter 1-Introduction, Page 9 "users of this report should not draw unwarranted conclusions when examining the data". Although comparative evaluations are appealing, analyses cannot account for apparent differences. Mr. Cipolla reported that the majority of transit systems use the data merely as a guide.

Mr. Cipolla provided a brief overview of three charts included in the Board Memorandum, Chart I, VTA Operating Costs, Chart II, Comparative Benefits Analysis and Chart III, Comparative Materials and Services Cost Analysis. Mr. Cipolla noted that in FY 02 there were several jumps in wages and benefit costs, the largest in benefits, due in part to increased medical costs and a significant change in costs for retiree medical benefits. He reported that the possibility exists and is being investigated, that the increase in retiree medical benefits may be due to the fact that the correct amount was not being paid in previous years.

Mr. Cipolla also noted VTA´s efforts in cost cutting measures and reported that materials and services were reduced by 17 percent, and wages decreased by 1.6 percent. He reported an increase in benefits from FY 02 to FY 01 of 25 percent and an additional increase of almost 11 percent from FY 03 to FY 02. Mr. Cipolla reported that labor union representatives worked very hard with staff to resolve issues during recent contract re-negotiations and noted that employees now share medical expenses.

Upon query of Member Perry, Mr. Cipolla replied that Chart I: VTA Operating Costs did not include Congestion Management Program, Caltrain, ACE, Light Rail, Shuttles, Highway projects, ADA Paratransit, or debt service. Only direct operating expenses are included.

Member Kennedy suggested a cap on retiree medical benefits.

The Committee expressed concern with the increased costs of retiree medical benefits. Mr. Cipolla informed the Committee that staff is investigating these costs and will come back to the Committee with the findings.

The Committee expressed their desire for appropriate comparison of VTA data to other transit systems for the purpose of rating VTA´s efficiency. Mr. Cipolla restated his previous caution that it is difficult to find peer comparisons due to a myriad of factors.

Member Brodsky encouraged VTA to locate $5.4 million in another area of the current budget to avoid increased fares.

Member Perry stated that he would like to see a VTA comparison to a few efficiently run transit systems to learn what makes them efficient.

Member King commented that VTA´s numbers are not that out of line with what the City of Saratoga for instance, is showing for medical expense increases.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the report on the Summary of VTA Actions to Achieve Financial Stability, was received and filed.

Tasman East/Capitol Bus/Rail Service Integration Plan

Mike Aro, Service and Operations Planning Deputy Director, provided an overview of the Service Integration Plan presentation provided at the February 12, 2004 PAC Meeting. He reported that since that meeting the Plan has gone through five community meetings, standing committees, and advisory committees for review and comment that resulted in a few minor modifications to the Plan based on public input.

In response to Member Perry's suggestions at the February 12, 2004 PAC Meeting that VTA look into: 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, and 3) taking advantage of the new light rail line on Capitol Avenue, consider eliminating parallel service on Lines 70 & 71, Mr. Aro reported that staff researched the suggestions and concluded that making those changes would not increase route efficiency or customer convenience.

Mr. Aro addressed the first suggestion and stated staff found that current ridership on Berryessa is currently almost double that of Las Plumas and Educational Park in Mabury between King and Capitol Avenue; there is more dense development along Berryessa and there is a shopping center at the corner of Capitol and Berryessa. He reported that Line 36 and 62 as they are currently configured are a better match demand for service, Line 36 operates every 30-mintues during the weekday peak hours and every 45-minutes mid-day and Line 62 operates every 20-minutes all day to accommodate service to the Bascom Avenue Corridor which is more heavily traveled requiring more frequent service. He reported that switching the routes would result in too much service on Mabury and not enough service on Berryessa and the Line 36 and 62 crisscrossing at King Road allow passengers on both lines to get closer to the Flea Market.

Regarding Mr. Perry's second suggestion to provide alternating trips from Tasman West to the Guadalupe Line to serve the new extension, Mr. Aro reported that staff created a mockup schedule for comparison. They concluded that the Tasman West Line is key to the entire connections at the Baypointe Station and is controlled by the fact that Tasman West has single track at the end of Mountain View so trains can only move through a single track in one direction at a time, driving the schedule down the entire line. Basing the schedule on that information staff attempted alternating trips and found that 15-minute headway could be maintained on the Tasman West segment but adjustments were necessary on the Guadalupe Line and the returning trip coming off the Tasman East/Capitol Line resulting in erratic headways on both lines and the necessity to run multiple car trains on both lines rather than just one.

Regarding the third suggestion to eliminate service on the Lines 70 and 71, because they parallel light rail service and compete with ridership for the light rail extension, Mr. Aro reported that the lines serve different markets traveling north and south along King and Jackson Road and junior and senior high school riders along both lines would be impacted. He reported that Line 70 is the second or third, depending on what day you look at it, highest ridership line in the system, eliminating that segment of routing between Alum Rock and Hostetter would impact approximately 4,000 boardings.

The PAC Committee discussed the updated Tasman East/Capitol Bus/Rail Service Integration Plan and wanted assurance that the integration plan is efficient.

Member Chu asked staff to consider modifying the proposed light rail operating plan to have alternating trips from the Tasman West Line and Guadalupe Lines serve the new Tasman East/Capitol light rail extension.

Mr. Aro noted that staff recommendation was to leave the Light Rail Operating Plan as proposed for the following reasons: 1) the single-track segment of rail line in Mountain View determines the Tasman West schedule, therefore, connections at Baypointe Station are controlled by the Tasman West schedule, 2) Based on a schedule evaluation of this alternative, maintaining 15-minute headways on all alternating branches of rail service would not be attainable because though consistent headways could be maintained on Tasman West, headways would become erratic on Guadalupe and Tasman East/Capitol. The alternating schedule would result in Tasman West trains arriving at the Alum Rock terminus and leaving as Guadalupe trains, and Guadalupe trains arriving at Alum Rock and leaving as Tasman West trains, this would necessitate operating multi-car trains on all lines.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the report on the Tasman East/Capitol Bus/Rail Service Integration Plan, was received and filed.

Revised FY 2004 Second Quarter Performance Report

Mr. Aro reported that the operating expenses are down 9.3 percent from last year. He noted that an increase in fares from 65 cents to 75 cents in August 2003 resulted in a farebox recovery increase from 10.2 percent to 13 percent. Mr. Aro reported that the current operating cost per hour is $158. Ridership is down 17 to 18 percent on bus and rail and noted there has been a ridership decline for 34 consecutive months, service quality continues to improve, and miles between chargeable accidents continue to increase.

Member Perry asked if staff has conducted research to determine how much of the change in ridership is due to changes in employment versus fares and other factors. Mr. Aro replied that a model was used that looked at all factors plotting ridership over several years against gasoline prices, economy, and employment among other factors. The result was that employment was the key factor that determined ridership.

Member Caserta asked what specific steps would be taken to recover ridership. Mr. Aro reported that discussion is underway with the marketing department and community partners. Staff is also researching parking and service initiatives.

Member Chu asked if studies have been done to determine if ridership decrease is related to roadway improvements. Matthew O. Tucker, Chief Operating Officer, acknowledged that currently with employment down there is less congestion on roadways and the public finds it more convenient to drive. He noted that an increase in employment would result in traffic congestion and longer travel times and trends show drivers returning to transit for convenient and efficient travel.

Member Brodsky suggested incentives for customers to increase ridership. Mr. Tucker responded that staff is proactive, working with the marketing department and community partners to look at alternatives to attract customers.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the loss of ridership and suggested staff explore creative ways to regain riders. The Committee requested information about having Internet accessible on light rail and light rail platforms and suggested VTA conduct a study of market segments for ridership analysis.

The Committee was also interested in Eco Pass participation information.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Revised FY 2004 Second Quarter Performance Report was received and filed.

Recommendations for VTP 2030 Program Allocations And Project Priorities

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that staff is currently in the process of updating the VTP 2030 project list. She reported that the amount available for the VTA Board of Directors to allocate to VTP 2030 program areas at its discretion is $1.081 billion. She referred to Table 1 on Page 3, Proposed VTP 2030 Investment Target Allocation and provided a brief overview of the chart.

Member Perry commented that regarding the $107 million State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding, these funds are specifically limited for roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects and not transit projects.

Ms. Gonot clarified that when the original VTP 2020 program was created in 2000, Proposition 42 was not in existence, so STIP funding was generated differently in the form of gas tax and a gas sales tax.

Member King commented on the evaluation criteria and asked that if smaller cities get back, in project priorities and completed projects, what they put forth in tax dollars.

Ms. Gonot explained that there is a certain amount of geographic inequity, but that all cities were capped at $50 million to allow at least the smaller cities to get their number one project priority on the list, this allows VTA to cover more regional issues.

Chairperson Sandoval commented that her city, City of Cupertino, had very few projects on the list and upon questioning her city staff found that those projects were the only ones that they had applied for.

Member Perry asked why in the Expressways section was Caltrain grade-separations not included. Ms. Gonot responded that at the March 19, 2004 Board Workshop there will be a comprehensive presentation on the Caltrain Program, to include a list from Caltrain staff regarding grade separation, budget, integration with high-speed rail, and other issues.

Member Kennedy left the meeting at 6: 20 p.m.

Member Brodsky noted that if the Downtown East Valley (DTEV) project were broken into segments rather than being submitted as one perhaps one or two of segments would make it onto the list and possibly free up some funding for other projects.

Member LeZotte stated the VTA Board of Directors has designated DTEV its first priority.

M/S/C (Brodsky/King) to request the VTA Board of Directors to consider the DTEV project as three separate segments and then rank each segment separately: 1) Santa Clara to Alum Rock (LRT or bus), 2) Alum Rock to Eastridge (LRT), and 3) Eastridge to Nieman (LRT).

M/S/C (Brodsky/King) to request the VTA Board of Directors to re-evaluate the Transit Project Prioritization Criteria in view of current financial realities.

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

Member Perry commented on the Transit Program portion of the VTP 2030 document is not consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Coalition data because bonding is not included in the calculations.

Ms. Gonot acknowledged member Perry's remarks and explained that it is very difficult to calculate bonding costs as it is necessary to factor in the bond rate, when the bond will go into effect, how much of the bond will actually be spent, when the bonds will be pulled. She also noted that the Board had not given any indication that they are considering bonding at this time.

Member LeZotte requested that an item be placed on the April 8, 2004 PAC Meeting to discuss why the Zero-Emissions Bus Program was dropped from 100 percent to 15 percent as well as a report out on how CARB requirements are met.

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Revised FY 2004 Second Quarter Performance Report was received and filed.

2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Revisions

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Revisions was deferred to the April 8, 2004 PAC Meeting.

Member Agency Endorsement of VTA's Community Design and Transportation Program (CDT)

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the Member Agency Endorsement of VTA's Community Design and Transportation Program (CDT) was deferred to the April 8, 2004 PAC Meeting.

OTHER

Announcements

There were no announcements.

Adjournment

On order of Chairperson Sandoval, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara R. Cappa, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors