Related Links

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Kishimoto called the Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to order at 4:10 p.m. in Building A, Auditorium, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present
Mark Brodsky
Steve Glickman, Vice Chairperson
Joseph D. Hernandez
Dennis Kennedy, Alternate
Yoriko Kishimoto, Chairperson
Linda J. LeZotte
King Lear
Victor Ojakian
Greg Perry
Ron Swegles
Dolores Sandoval

Members Absent
Dominic Caserta
Armando Gomez
Breene Kerr
Norman Kline
Al Pinheiro

A quorum was present. 

Orders of the Day

There were no Orders of the Day.

Public Presentation

There were no Public Presentations.

Committee Staff Report

John Ristow, Deputy Director of Programming and Project Development, introduced VTA’s new Deputy Director of Operations Planning and Support Services, Samuel Lau. 

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

Chairperson’s Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

City Groupings Reports

Alternate Member Kennedy reported that the Milpitas, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill (MGM) Group met in August 2005, and discussed: 1. The upcoming agenda, 2. Providing the City Groupings’ report on the Long-Term Capital Expenditure Program prior to the September 8, 2005, PAC meeting, 3. County Expressways with the City of Gilroy noting their concern regarding geographic equity in terms of funding for local arterials, and 4. The makeup of the VTA Board of Directors and the City Groupings concern that the combination of Milpitas, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill does not work well because of geographic differences.   Alternate Member Kennedy noted that an alternative proposal is currently being developed. 

Chairperson Kishimoto reported that the North County City Group met on July 22, 2005, and discussed: 1. The new Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario that VTA Board of Directors directed staff to analyze, 2. Requesting the Board of Directors consider the BART by 2021 quarter cent sales tax scenario in addition to the current quarter cent sales tax scenario being analyzed by VTA staff, 3.  BART ridership numbers, and 4. Recommending that the City Groupings schedule a meeting between September 1, 2005, and September 8, 2005, to discuss and form a recommendation regarding the new Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario analysis.

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

CONSENT

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Member Brodsky requested Agenda Item #7, Minutes of July 21, 2005, be Removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.

(Removed from Consent and placed on the Regular Agenda)

Minutes of July 21, 2005

Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report from April through June 2005

M/S/C (Sandoval/ Kennedy) to receive and file the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report from April through June 2005.

Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report January through March 2005

M/S/C (Sandoval/ Kennedy) to receive and file the Proactive CMP Reviewed and Approved Projects Quarterly Status Report January through March 2005.

REGULAR

Minutes of July 21, 2005

Member Brodsky quoted “am I a potted plant, what am I?”   He stated that he had asked questions of Board Chairperson Pirzynski, “How are you responding to the editorials regarding BART’s funding?”  He stated that his questions did not make it to the minutes, he noted that it may just be an oversight but that this was not the first time in either this committee meeting or other meetings that comments critical of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor have somehow not made it into the minutes. 

From the July 21, 2005 PAC Meeting:

Member Brodsky noted an article he read on the internet, written by the former CFO of the VTA from the 90’s, a letter to the editor of the San Jose Mercury News regarding cost controls that were part of VTA in the past, a way of looking forward to what ridership and sales tax revenues were and adjusting them together. According to the writer of the article those cost controls have been taken away and have left the problem of building without having known capacity to bring the farebox in.  Member Brodsky noted that the article raised serious questions about taking on expensive services before solving funding problems. 

Board Chairperson Pirzynski stated that the writer of the article was not the CFO of VTA but the budget manager. Chairperson Pirzynski indicated no response was planned at this time.

M/S/C (Kennedy/Sandoval) on a vote of 11 ayes to 0 nays to 0 abstentions to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2005, as amended. 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air   (TFCA) County Program Manager Fund Report

Mr. Ristow provided an overview of a report on the background of the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) program in answer to questions from PAC.   He reported that at its August 3, 2000 meeting, the VTA Board designated half of the annual TFCA 40% allocation to Tier 1 Bicycle Projects in the countywide Bicycle Plan for a ten-year period.  When the Board merged the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects into a single Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) this commitment was extended to 2030.  The remaining half of the funds is awarded to projects on a competitive basis.  Mr. Ristow reported a recent eligibility change in TFCA requirements for benefits that made it very difficult for Bicycle Projects to meet. VTA will enter into a swap agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) allowing VTA the availability of funds that are more bike friendly and MTC could use VTA’s TFCA 40% funds for the Bay Area’s regional commute information service (RIDES), which supports carpool and vanpool options. He noted that this is a temporary fix to the problem.

Chairperson Kishimoto asked how long the swap could continue.  Mr. Ristow explained that the swap could be effective for two years and it does not solve the long-term issue.    

Member Perry asked if it is possible to use a smaller portion of the funds.   Mr. Ristow noted that the eligibility has become so constricted that the use of a smaller portion of funds is not available.  Member Perry requested an explanation/description of the eligibility list.

Member Perry requested the cost per ton of pollutants reduced for some of the other programs for instance buses and trains.  He asked if VTA does analysis per cost per ton of pollutants removed.  Mr. Ristow noted that each project is plugged into a model provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) that determines what the benefit or cost effectiveness is on each program.  He noted projects that include converting engines or setting up a new fleet of vehicles (non-polluting vehicle purchases or equipment conversions) score the highest.   Other types of projects that can be funded through the BAAQMD are corridor management types of projects (retiming or synchronizing signals).  These are eligible projects but the eligibility requirements are reaching a point where these projects are no longer viable.  Member Perry requested a list of what the projects are and where they came in.   Mr. Ristow noted that within the program there is a list of eligibility types that can be provided.

PAC expressed concern regarding the potential of diminishing bike funds and encouraged staff to come up with an alternative. 

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Transportation Fund for Clean Air   (TFCA) County Program Manager Fund Report was received and filed.

FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report

Member Swegles asked if the farebox and ridership numbers are consistent with the assumptions VTA is currently using for long-term revenue forecasts for the budget, Long-Term Capital Expenditures, and other long-range forecasts.  He noted that the
FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Reportindicates many decreases and asked if that will be reflected in the long-range forecasts.   Samuel Lau, Deputy Director of Operations Planning and Support Services, indicated that staff will get back with that information. 

Member Perry asked if ridership forecasts have been done in the past and what were the last two or three year’s performance projections for 2005. 

Member Brodsky noted that this is something that PAC has asked for previously, what was projected and how did VTA do against those projections.  He noted that when VTA raised fares there was a projection and he asked how did VTA rate against that projection. Member Brodsky noted there is a breakdown of annual ridership of light rail versus bus and hour-by-hour data.  He noted it would be nice to see an apples-to-apples comparison of data prior to the rate hikes with current data. 

M/S/C (Brodsky/Kennedy) to request a comparison of past projected ridership forecast data to actual ridership data in future performance reports.

In response to a question from Member Perry, Mr. Lau reported that though the FY 2005 Third Quarter Transit Operations Performance Report identifies a decrease in ridership and farebox recovery from last year it also identifies a modest increase in ridership and farebox recovery per month which indicates that in the next 6 to 12 months ridership should trend upward.

Vice Chairperson Glickman noted a significant decline in overall system ridership from the same time last year and that current optimism is based on a very small one-month increase.   He asked why the decreases occurred.   Mr. Lau noted that the decreases in bus ridership are slowing down while light rail ridership has increased month after month.  He noted the startup of the new Bus Rapid Transit Project Line 522 bus service has resulted in an increase of 17 percent ridership throughout the corridor.  He noted the new Los Gatos Community Bus service and new Vasona Light Rail Extension will feed into a new market. All these things combined should result in improved ridership. 

Member Sandoval commended VTA on the decrease in employee unscheduled time off and noted the decrease in paratransit ridership relates to a decrease in the cost of paratransit.  She commended VTA for providing quality services for less.

Member Lear left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Santa Clara County High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Demonstration Project

Mr. Ristow reported that HOT Lanes is a new initiative the Ad-Hoc Financial Stability Committee recommended to generate revenue to augment transit operations.  Mr. Ristow called on Casey Emoto, Transportation Engineering Manager, to provide a brief report.

Mr. Emoto provided an overview of the HOT Lane Feasibility Study that examined the potential for implementing managed lanes as an innovative operations and financing solution to congested freeway corridors in Santa Clara County.  He reported that HOT Lane is a carpool lane where single occupant vehicles are allowed for a toll.  He reported that Assembly Bill 2032 passed in 2004: 1. Allows implementation of two HOT Lane corridors in Santa Clara County, 2.  Net toll revenue must be used within the corridor for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities and transit service improvements, 3. HOT Lanes must maintain level of Service (LOS) C, with LOS D allowed under certain conditions, 4. Operation of the HOT Lane is allowed for up to four years after first date of revenue collection, and 5) An evaluation report of operations is due to the State Legislature within three years after start of revenue collection. He reported the purpose of the Study is to assess Santa Clara.

The Committee discussed using open HOV lanes versus separate closed lanes for HOT service, types of enforcement of HOT Lanes, potential revenues, lane congestion, potential cost of implementing HOT Lanes, and the use of Fastrack technology. 

Member Brodsky noted that the HOT Lane concept could cause future traffic congestion issues and stressed the need to eliminate single occupancy vehicles.

He suggested casual carpooling and noted that 25 person vans running every 15 minutes carrying 100 people per hour at $1.50 per person would provide more money and reduce congestion. 

Member Swegles left the meeting at 5:44 p.m.

Member Kishimoto noted that VTA could do more to promote casual carpooling.

Mr. Ristow noted the Rides For Bay Area Commuters Program.   The Bay Area’s regional commute information service (RIDES) that supports carpool and vanpool options.

Vice Chairperson Glickman noted recent discussion regarding making HOV Lanes available for Hybrid cars and asked if Hybrid cars will still be able to use the HOV Lanes if the HOT Lane concept is implemented.    Vice Chairperson Glickman stated his belief that unlimited access to the HOV/HOT Lanes would be a significant benefit to people using the system.  He requested that how to best serve VTA customers take high priority as various options are reviewed.  

Member Swegles noted that many people have indicated concern regarding the affordability of HOT Lanes and with gas prices going up, prefer the option of carpooling.   He suggested that a less expensive alternative would be to develop carpool pickup points.   

Member Perry noted that HOT Lane implementation will be expensive and may slow down the users commute. 

Member Brodsky noted he would approve the recommendation if amended to include a review of other means to increase HOV ridership (casual or shuttle carpooling.)

Member Perry stated he would not support the recommendation, as he believes it is too early for preliminary engineering.   He stated that he would approve of a recommendation to finish feasibility and cost benefit analysis before moving into preliminary engineering.  

The Committee suggested that the Preliminary Engineering should address the following: 1. Consider the impacts HOT Lanes will have on existing HOV carpoolers, 2. Consider how HOT Lanes compare to other transportation revenue opportunities, 3. Conduct a cost/benefit analysis including start-up costs and on-going maintenance, and 4. Provide a higher degree of detail regarding access and implementation issues.  

M/S/F (Brodsky/Kennedy) on a vote of 8 ayes to 1 nay to 0 abstentions to recommend that VTA Board of Directors authorize VTA staff to proceed to the preliminary engineering phase in the development of a demonstration project of a high occupancy toll (HOT) Lane based on the findings of the Santa Clara County HOT Lane Feasibility Study and further, address the following: 1. Consider the impacts HOT Lanes will have on existing HOV carpoolers, 2. Consider how HOT Lanes compare to other transportation revenue opportunities, 3. Conduct a cost/benefit analysis including start-up costs and on-going maintenance, and 4. Provide a higher degree of detail regarding access and implementation issues. 

Member Sandoval noted for the record her disappointment that the motion failed.  She reminded the Committee that the vote was not to create the HOT Lane but to further explore it and add in the details that the Board of Director’s would need to ultimately make a decision on implementation.  Member Sandoval noted that this was a great opportunity for PAC to provide input and move an important policy issue forward.  Member Sandoval expressed her desire to have PAC’s comments on the HOT Lane item represented at the September 1, 2005 Board of Directors Meeting.  

Alternate Member Kennedy requested Chairperson Kishimoto relay to the Board of Directors that the motion failed on a vote of 8 to 1 because of the handcuffs placed on this Committee with the voting requirement.  He noted this prevents the Committee to effectively provide input to the Board of Directors.           

Member Perry left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) Report to the PAC

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) Report to the PAC was deferred to the October 13, 2005 PAC Meeting.

Long Term Transit Capital Investment Program

 Chairperson Kishimoto requested PAC Members to submit comments regarding the Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program to VTA. 

Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030) Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study

Chris Augenstein, Transportation Planning Manager, reported that the VTP 2030 Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study was requested by the Board of Directors’ and noted the two-phase process:   1. Establishing a policy framework that better links decision-making regarding VTA’s bus and rail capital expansion with supporting land use policies and other commitments from Member Agencies, 2. Evaluate seven potential new corridors contained in the VTP 2030 for their potential to carry high capacity transit.  Those corridors found not to be suitable will be evaluated for other lower capacity transit services/various bus options. 

Vice Chairperson Glickman stressed the importance of extensive consultation with management staff of the Member Agencies.

Member Brodsky expressed concern that potential station locations and highway connection stations are not included as part of the Corridor Study.

Chairperson Kishimoto noted that she often hears that light rail transportation is not a very time effective way to get from location to location.  She suggested that time efficiency be included as part of the study.              

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the VTP 2030 Transit Capital Expansion Policy and New Corridors Study was reviewed.

OTHER

High Speed Rail

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, High Speed Rail Report was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

Review the Committee Work Plan. 

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the Committee Work Plan was deferred to the September 8, 2005.

Adjournment

On order of Chairperson Kishimoto, there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara R. Box, 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 FAILED.