CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 1:38   p.m. by Chairperson Porter in Conference Room B-104, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentations.

Committee Staff Report

John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, noted that VTA’s new General Manager, Michael T. Burns, would be attending the October 13, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

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

Alternate Member Rowe took his seat at 1:40 p.m.

Chairperson’s Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report

Los Gatos Community Bus Update           

Jim Unites, Operations Planning Program Manager, reported that VTA implemented the Los Gatos Community Bus service on July 4, 2005.   The shuttle routes are Lines 48 and 49.   The Line 48 shuttle route begins at Winchester Light Rail Station to Los Gatos Hospital and ends at Los Gatos Civic Center.  The Line 49 shuttle route begins at Winchester Light Rail Station and ends at Los Gatos Civic Center.   Five shuttles are in service operation and VTA worked closely with the City of Los Gatos on a design for the shuttles.

Mr. Unites reported that VTA had a few start-up issues the first two weeks of service, but since then things have been going well.   Ridership is doing well and the two routes on weekdays averages over 600 riders a day.   Weekend ridership averages about 450 riders a day.  The ridership should increase once the Vasona Light Rail Extension opens.

Member Dey queried about the positive comments received on the Los Gatos Community Bus service.   Mr. Unites noted that the community, in general, likes the smaller buses circulating through Los Gatos. 

Alternate Member Batra queried if there was any change in operating cost.   Mr. Unites noted the service is a contracted service from a company located in East Palo Alto, who does all of the Caltrain shuttles.   The cost is lower than when VTA operated the service.

Upon query of Member Kass, Mr. Unites noted that the shuttle service is free.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Los Gatos Community Bus Update was received and filed.

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

Minutes of August 11, 2005

M/S/C (Tripousis/Collen) to approve Minutes of August 11, 2005.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Freeway Litter Control and Replacement Landscaping Program: Progress Report

Mr. Ristow noted the attendance of Gary Richards, San Jose Mercury News, and stated Mr. Richards would be writing an article on Litter Control in Santa Clara County.

John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, reported that VTA received many complaints regarding the freeway litter and replacement landscaping on the South Bay freeways.    The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) asked VTA to undertake a study to try to answer some of the questions being raised by the cities and local agencies in regards to the freeway litter problems and replacement landscaping. 

Mr. Sighamony reported that VTA hired a consultant firm, T.Y. Lin International, to conduct a basic overview of the litter and landscaping issues.   VTA met with Caltrans, District 4 Maintenance, and surveys were sent out asking for the condition of the litter and landscaping on the freeways in Santa Clara County.  Information was gathered from the surveys and from Caltrans and a Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study for Freeways in Santa Clara County Draft Report was developed containing information on the existing conditions of the freeways.  VTA then formed a subcommittee to look further into all of the problems found in the initial assessment.  Mr. Sighamony noted that VTA found out that the South Bay and District 4 ranked lower than other districts in terms of litter problems, noting the South Bay ranked last in District 4.  The subcommittee worked with Caltrans in trying to find ways to alleviate the problem.

Member Curtis took his seat at 1:49 p.m.

Mr. Sighamony distributed a chart entitled Litter Control & Landscape Maintenance Levels of Effort (For Discussion Purposes – Work in Progress) and provided an overview.   VTA will be looking at how to implement global strategies and how to get funding to alleviate the litter and landscaping issues.  VTA will be focusing on the    Adopt-A-Highway Program.  

Mr. Sighamony also distributed a document entitled Litter Control and Landscape Maintenance Study Final Report Outline and provided an overview.    He noted that VTA is in discussions regarding the implementation strategies and funding for litter removal and landscaping restoration.

Upon query of Alternate Member Tripousis, Mr. Sighamony noted that the final report should be done by December 2005.  

Alternate Member Batra queried if Caltrans would get their own funding for the litter control and landscape maintenance efforts or should they be looking at other opportunities through their funding sources to augment that funding.   Mr. Sighamony indicated it would be a little bit of both, noting when Caltrans receives money to do maintenance projects, the money gets split up between safety projects, etc.  Unfortunately, litter control and landscaping falls at the bottom. Alternate Member Batra indicated that VTA should continue to work with Caltrans to bring the freeways up to the level of other districts, noting that Caltrans should use their current funding sources first.

Alternate Member Tripousis noted that Bob Salazar, Caltrans – District 4, has been very engaged in the litter and landscaping issues.   He noted that the larger issue is the size and character of District 4, the kinds of facilities being asked to maintain, more people, and high concentration of landfills and trucks.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell noted that Caltrans is very pleased to be a part of TAC and to work with VTA and other members of the community to tackle the issue.  Caltrans has recently made a sizeable capital investment with the opening of its new maintenance facility located near the 85/101 Interchange area.  Ex-Officio Member Cowell noted that their Department is in the process of redirecting resources within its current year budget in the amount of $10 million to be focused on litter control.  He referred to their program called “Don’t Trash California” and noted it is their effort to try to educate people, to help with litter control issues and to make sure that the public is aware of the consequences for littering.  

Mr. Sighamony suggested looking at the source of litter and noted that he sent an e-mail to TAC asking for information on specific gateways, landfills, and haul routes for garbage vehicles.  

Alternate Member Tripousis referred to District 11, San Diego County, and noted that one of the reasons why the District is rated so high from a maintenance standpoint statewide is because it is just one district, one place. 

Alternate Member Likens referred to the litter problem and queried about the reason why District 4 is characterized as the worse district.   Mr. Sighamony indicated that it depends on the amount of Caltrans crews available.  He indicated that San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties were joined together as one area and noted that it is hard to get workers to go that big of a distance to pick-up litter for a small amount of pay.

Member Dey referred to the upkeep of the Interstate 280 corridor through the Peninsula area and queried about the difference between the levels of effort maintained on the Interstate 280 corridor versus the Interstate 101 corridor.   Ex-Officio Member Cowell noted it would depend on the travel characteristics, how dense is the traffic, and what is the make-up of the traffic in the corridor.  He noted that Caltrans wants to give as much attention to this area as they do to all other areas in the Bay Area and wants to make sure that they are doing as much as they can to address the interest of the community.    

Member Armendariz referred to Caltrans’ restructuring process and its efforts to focus on litter control and queried about the timeframe involved to try to solve the problems.   Ex-Officio Member Cowell indicated that he would have to defer the question to Caltrans’ Maintenance staff, noting that Caltrans is trying to be responsive in tackling the issues now.  

Member Rose expressed concern regarding the current level of effort and noted that he questions a lot of it.   He noted what is really important is what is going to be the future.   He noted the need to quantify the problem to find out if there is a deficit and to move purposefully to some kind of plan.

Member Kass reported that Caltrans is making an effort to work with us cooperatively on the issue, noting that the issue is very complex.   He noted that the level of funding is not there from Caltrans or not reserved for litter and landscaping.  Member Kass noted that he does not think the level of attention to the issue has ever made it to the point where people are really focused on the benefits of having a clean freeway system.

Alternate Member Batra suggested that either correspondence be written or a meeting be held with Will Kempton, Director of Caltrans, to see if, at his level, he can allocate more resources or help District 4 with the litter/landscaping issue.

Ex-Officio Member Cowell noted that the leadership in his department is very keenly aware of the concerns heard regarding litter.   He noted that there is definite attention being given to the issue. 

Member Curtis asked what can TAC do to turn all of the talk into a reality.   Ex-Officio Member Cowell indicated the discussions at TAC are an excellent start, noting that it is the Committee’s prerogative on how they want to further contact Caltrans.   He noted that there are personnel at Caltrans, District 4, really tuned into and working on the issue.  He referred to the maintenance team in Oakland, noting that Bob Salazar, Regional Manager, may also be a point of contact.

Alternate Member Tripousis noted that the report itself is going to be a discussion about resource allocation.   He indicated the problem has been identified and that there is a need to figure out the extent to which we need to allocate whatever resources there are and determine how often we need to do that to get to a level of maintenance that is up to everyone’s satisfaction.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, a Progress Report on the Freeway Litter Control and Replacement Landscaping Program was received and filed. 

Proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios

Carolyn M. Gonot, Chief Development Officer, reported that the VTA Board of Directors will be discussing the proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios at the September 16, 2005 Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting.

Ms. Gonot directed attention to the report entitled Additional 2000 Measure A Revenue & Expenditure Scenarios and noted that VTA has responded to a direction from the Board of Directors at their June 16, 2005 Board of Directors’ Meeting to provide a new Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario following assumptions that were contained in a memorandum from Board Member Gonzales.   She noted that on July 14, 2005, Chairperson Pirzynski provided a matrix to the Board of Directors containing assumptions for the current sales tax scenario and asked for comments from various community stakeholders. Comments were received from the North County City Grouping, Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), and Yoriko Kishimoto, Palo Alto Council Member, and VTA’s Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Chairperson.   Ms. Gonot directed attention to Attachment 2, Comments on Current Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario, and noted that the attachment also contained VTA’s responses.

Ms. Gonot reported that SVLG has been working with PAC to look at a 30-year sales tax measure. She directed attention to the Additional 2000 Measure A Revenue & Expenditures Scenarios report and provided an overview of the following Scenarios: 1)  Run #5: Current Scenario – BART to Silicon Valley by 2015, 2) Run #6 – SVLG Poll (30-year tax) with Pavement Management Program, and 3) Run #7 – BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 (3-year delay).  She noted that Run #5, which was run by VTA, differs from Run #6, noting that Run #6 deletes the single car light rail alternative on Santa Clara/Alum Rock as well as the Capital Light Rail extension to Nieman from Eastridge and substitutes a new Bus Rapid Transit Project in the Sunnyvale/Cupertino corridor.  Run #6 also looks at adding a program for local streets and roads and bicycle and pedestrian path improvements.  Ms. Gonot referred to Run #7 and noted that originally the Run was looking at a delay to BART.  She indicated that VTA showed this Run to the Board of Directors at the June 2005 Meeting, which had a five-year delay.  VTA has now come back with a delay of three years, noting that it is in response to what some of the North County City elected officials were asking for and it allows some projects to be moved up and delivered sooner.  She indicated that BART changed in all of the Runs, noting that BART was phased in.

Ms. Gonot noted that the Board of Directors requested that staff bring the proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios to TAC and PAC to receive feedback from the Committees on the scenarios.

Ms. Gonot noted that another Board of Directors’ Workshop Meeting would be held on October 21, 2005 to discuss the Scenarios as well.

Alternate Member Tripousis queried if there was an overall timeline for adoption of VTA’s Expenditure Plan.    Ms. Gonot noted if the Board of Directors would like to go for a ballot measure in 2006, the desire would be to have the Expenditure Plan decided before the end of 2005.

Member Curtis noted that he was approached by a member of a committee upon the Peninsula called The Committee to Save Caltrain and was asked to distribute an e-mail on their behalf to TAC requesting that the Board of Directors consider 1/3 of the proposed quarter cent sales tax to Caltrain.   Chairperson Porter requested that a copy of the e-mail be given to the Board Secretary to forward to the Board of Directors, noting that TAC would not be taking a position on the item. 

Alternate Member Likens referred to Run #7: BART to Silicon Valley by 2018 (3-year delay) wherein it states that the North County City Group requested a scenario that delayed BART six years to 2021.   She queried about the reasoning for changing the delay from six to three years.  Ms. Gonot noted that staff had talked with some Board Members since then and compromised in looking at a three-year delay.   She referred to the SVLG Poll and noted it became sort of more or less a comparison of Run #6 versus Run #7, with a delay to BART, which was the only change from Run #5 to Run #7.   She noted that the SVLG Poll asked for a three-year delay as well. 

Alternate Member Likens referred to Run #6 and the timing of all the projects and expressed concern that the Dumbarton Rail project was pushed out in Run #7 compared to the timing of the project in Run #5.   She also referred to the decrease in funding for the Caltrain Corridor and pointed out the new program, the Pavement Management Program, that was not in the original Run #5 or in Run #7.   Alternate Member Likens noted that there seems like there are some issues that maybe North County would have with the way the reallocations are occurring.  Ms. Gonot referred to SVLG discussions and noted that the local streets and roads polled very high and that there is still a desire to have pavement management.

Alternate Member Tripousis queried if the Board of Directors decided that there needed to be some changes made to the projects that are getting funded, would VTA have to go back to the voters to change the make-up of the 2000 Measure.   Ms. Gonot noted that it would depend on where the Board of Directors chooses to go, but to add pavement management, no.   To not do at least two new rail corridors may need to be cleaned up in the language with the new measure.

Upon query of Alternate Member Tripousis, Ms. Gonot clarified that Runs #5 and #7 are for a permanent quarter cent sales tax and Run #6 is a 30-year sunset.

Member Jenkins noted that she heard rumors that the County of Santa Clara is looking at a possible measure themselves.   Ms. Gonot noted that the Santa Clara County Cities Association had a forum about six months ago and that VTA’s former General Manager, Peter M. Cipolla, made a presentation at the forum regarding a possible half cents sales tax. The County of Santa Clara had done some scenarios of the half cents sales tax.   Alternate Member Collen indicated that it is still under study conceptually, noting that the County of Santa Clara’s General Fund has had trouble meeting its needs for many years.  He noted that there is an interest in polling public support for a sales tax.  

Alternate Member Batra referred to the scenarios and queried if VTA could afford to operate the projects once they were built.   Ms. Gonot noted that the new sales tax would primarily be for operating the projects and any future services.   Alternate Member Batra noted the success of previous sales tax measures that sunset as compared to the failure of those sales tax measures without a sunset.

Alternate Member Tripousis noted that the City of San Jose has not taken a formal position on the proposed scenarios and noted that it is suggested the Board of Directors have a meaningful discussion about pavement management and the appropriateness of funding pavement management as part of a future measure.

Alternate Member Batra referred to the old bridges and suggested that not only pavement management be discussed but that other transportation infrastructures that are old be discussed as well.   Member Rose noted that the intent was to include all roadway maintenance.

Member Rose noted that the City of Sunnyvale has not taken an official position and expressed concern regarding TAC reviewing the item and taking a position when the elected officials have not taken a position.

Member Armendariz noted that the City of Milpitas’ Council has expressed concerned about the deterioration of its roads, particularly with respect to arterials, which is where the buses run.   He noted that there has to be some assistance to the cities in providing some increase in maintenance efforts with regards to the roads.

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Committee reviewed and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding proposed Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenarios. 

Announcements

Alternate Member Tripousis noted his participation with the Local Streets and Roads Subcommittee at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to get additional regional pavement dollars to the local jurisdictions for pavement maintenance.   He noted that part of that activity includes MTC staff operating what is referred to as the Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), and as part of their ongoing review of programs at MTC, there has been some discussion about eliminating PTAP.   He noted that the members of the Local Streets and Roads Committee are vigorously opposing the elimination of PTAP.  Alternate Member Tripousis requested that VTA staff prepare a letter on behalf of TAC opposing the elimination of PTAP and that it be agendized as an action item at the October 13, 2005 TAC Meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Porter, there being no objection, the Meeting was adjourned at 2:45 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.