Related Links

he Regular Meeting of the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 3:03 p.m. by Chairperson Chavez, Lower Level Conference Room,  70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL 

Members Present                                 Members Absent
Blanca Alvarado                                       None 
Nora Campos, Vice Chairperson 
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
David Cortese 
Pete McHugh

A quorum was present

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentation.

Minutes of March 3, 2005

M/S/C (Campos/McHugh) to approve the Minutes of March 3, 2005.

Recommendation for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Alternative as input for the Board of Directors to consider when they discuss the 2000 Measure A Capital Investment Program at their Workshop Meeting on April 22, 2005

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager and DTEV PAB Staff Liaison, provided a report on Agenda Item #4.A., Summary Description of Transit Alternatives for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor and Agenda Item #4.B. Staff Recommendation for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Transit Alternative for consideration for the Alternatives to Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor. 

Mr. Connolly reported that Agenda Item #4.A., Summary Description of Transit Alternatives for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor is a head-to-head comparison of the two transit alternatives in the following four different areas:   Table 1:   Service Profile; Table 2:  Projects Costs; Table 3:  Street Design; and Table 4:  Project Implementation. 

Table 1:   Service Profile
Mr. Connolly noted there is a difference in the types and size of vehicles, as well as how many passengers they will carry.   The average ridership is projected to be 7,000 per day for Enhanced Bus and 8,000 per day for Single Car Light Rail.

Table 2: Project Costs
Mr. Connolly reported the difference between the two alternatives in the capital costs is   $85.2 million for Enhanced Bus and $298.7 for Single Car Light Rail. 

The annual operating costs will be $6.2 million for Enhanced Bus and $8.4 million for Single Car Light Rail. The annualized costs for the Enhanced Bus is $7.4 million and Single Car Light Rail is $24.2 million. 

Mr. Connolly advised that annualized costs follow the federal guidelines even though VTA is not obligated to for this project but are being used for information purposes only.   Mr. Connolly also advised the annualized costs are a combination of operating and capital costs.

The annualized cost per passenger is projected to be $5.86 for Enhanced Bus and $12.76 for Single Car Light Rail. 

Table 3:   Street Design
Mr. Connolly reported there will be no need to make changes to the streets with Enhanced Bus other than bulb-outs and shelters.    Single Car Light Rail will require changes to the street, on-street parking will be required, and in the Alum Rock portion a median with rail will have to be considered. 

Table 4:   Project Implementation
Mr. Connolly stated that the timeline to implement service for the Enhanced Bus is 2008 and 2016 for the Single Car Light Rail. 

Mr. Connolly noted that 29 on-street parking spaces will be removed for Enhanced Bus and 202 on-street parking spaces will be removed for Single Car Light Rail. 

Construction time for Enhanced Bus will be between 12 and 18 months and for Single Car Light Rail will be 30 to 36 months.

Member Cortese took his seat at 3:07 p.m.

Mr. Connolly reported that Agenda Item #4.B., Staff Recommendation for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Transit Alternative, restates staff’s position from August 2004 for Enhanced Bus. 

Mr. Connolly stated that in August 2004 staff provided a preliminary recommendation to the PAB for Enhanced Bus and the reasons for the recommendation was that it meets projected passenger demand in the corridor, delivers both operating and capital cost effectiveness, provides optimal operational flexibility, allows for expedited implementation, and minimizes construction impacts.

Passenger Demand
Mr. Connolly noted the biggest difference in the service between the two alternatives is the ability to provide service that meets demand due to constraints in the Corridor.   When building the light rail in a high volume traffic situation and no compromise is made, there will be a compromise in the service.   Passenger demand with the Single Car Light Rail will have to be supplemented with buses when full because Single Car Light Rail is a single car vehicle. 

Cost Effectiveness
There is about a 2:1 differential between the Single Car Light Rail and the Enhanced Bus when considering cost per passenger.

Operational Flexibility
A higher level of service can be provided with a street that operates as a roadway when operating buses.   Operators will have better flexibility, the ability to maneuver through traffic, and will not be bound by 10-minute frequencies. 

Service Implementation
There will be an eight-year delay for implementation of service for Single Car Light Rail Service as opposed to 12 to 18 months for Enhanced Bus.

Construction Impacts
The whole Corridor will be impacted with Single Car Light Rail because rail is being constructed piece by piece.   With Enhanced Bus only the areas around bulb-outs will be impacted by construction.

Next Steps
With regard to Next Steps, the PAB can provide input to the Board of Directors for consideration, prior to their April 22, 2005 Board Workshop Meeting.  

Staff is requesting that the PAB make a recommendation that will be considered preliminary.   There will be a formal period where the PAB will be asked to make a final recommendation at the completion of the comment period for the Draft Environment Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.   Staff anticipates releasing the report in mid to later summer.

Chairperson Chavez queried if the Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program had the correct language with regard to preliminary staff recommendation because it is important to be consistent with wording.   Mr. Connolly responded that it did.

Member McHugh referenced Agenda Item 4.B., Staff Recommendation for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Transit Alternative, Page 2 of 4, fourth paragraph, “Implementation of Enhanced Bus will not preclude VTA from continuing to work with the City of San Jose on a light rail alternative” and queried if that comment means the PAB could recommend another alternative later.   Mr. Connolly stated that the paragraph means that the project can be done in a phased approach, which would allow staff to get the service out there and then work towards a better rail service.

Member Alvarado stated that in August 2004 staff brought forward their preliminary recommendation to the PAB for Enhanced Bus and the PAB was generous enough at that time to say that although Single Car Light Rail was still the PAB’s preferred alternative, both alternatives should be studied.   The majority of the PAB still prefers Single Car Light Rail but the problem now relates to the discussion that took place last month regarding the Investment Plan and staff’s recommendation for the investment strategy for Alum Rock.   Member Alvarado stated that unless VTA Board of Directors get some very strong lobbying from the PAB, it is likely that the majority of VTA Board of Directors will not know what the PAB has been experiencing in the past years which has now brought it to the point where the PAB feels very strongly that the formal position on Single Car Light Rail be forwarded to Board of Directors at their Workshop of  April 22, 2005. 

Vice Chairperson Campos advised that the motion she proposes is very strong because it does not allow a lot of wiggle room from staff’s end to misinterpret the PAB’s strong position.

M/S/C (Campos/McHugh) that Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board make a formal recommendation that Single Car Light Rail is the preferred mode to be considered in the Alum Rock/Santa Clara Corridor.

Environmental Clearance – Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project

Steven Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner, reported staff will be circulating the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project by April 14, 2005, and presented to the Board of Directors for approval at their Board Meeting of May 5, 2005. The report encompasses the PAB’s recommendations made in  August 2004 for the entire Alignment from Alum Rock Avenue to Nieman Boulevard. 

Mr. Fisher referenced his report to the PAB of March 3, 2005 with regard to the Federal Transportation Administration’s (FTA) new requirement stating that after a detailed investigation of the requirements and the likelihood of uncovering archaeological finds in the Corridor, which could delay the Project significantly if operating under federal rules, staff found a more prudent course to proceed with the FEIR at this time and back away from the impact statement.

Mr. Fisher acknowledged the efforts of Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning Manager, and his staff for preparation of the documents.

Member Cortese queried what other projects, if any, are subject to the new federal archaeological requirements. Mr. Fisher responded that the projects are Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor, BART Project, and Highway 152/156 Project.

Member Cortese queried if the projects will be delayed.   Mr. Fitzwater stated the projects will be delayed twice as long if VTA is the lead agency with the EIR. 

Member Cortese expressed concern that it appears as if the decision before the PAB is to abandon any interest in going through the federal processes.  Mr. Fisher stated that based on assumptions in Draft Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Program, it is unlikely that the Capitol Expressway Project would receive federal funds other than Transit for Livable Community (TCL) funds, which is a separate process for specific project areas.  Mr. Fisher noted at this point the costs of proceeding with a federal EIS are greater than the fund VTA is likely to receive.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Report on Environmental Clearance - Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project was received and filed.

Capitol Expressway Urban Design Workshop

Ken Ronsse, Design and Construction Manager, reported that an Open House for Urban Design was held on March 9, 2005, with 30 people in attendance. 

Mr. Ronsse stated that after discussion with several members of the community and review of comments, several themes began to emerge.   The Community received the concept of urban design and endorsed light rail, bikeways, pathways, landscaping, and artwork elements.

Mr. Ronsse reported that the Community expressed concern regarding the removal of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. 

Mr. Ronsse noted that the Community is in favor of aerial guideways and requested as many be used as possible.

Mr. Ronsse stated staff will be meeting with Pleasant Hills Neighborhood Association, per their request, on June 6, 2005, and are expecting between 50 to 100 people in attendance. 

Member Cortese expressed concern regarding traffic along Capitol Expressway without the HOV lanes and recommended that if there is a way either through the environmental process “or somehow linking the environmental analysis for Highway101 with the Environmental Analysis on Capitol Expressway” that in the worse case improvements to Highway 101 will mean traffic on Capitol Expressway will not get worse in the future.   At best the analysis will demonstrate that Capitol/Tully/Yerba Buena are not congested during peak hours.   This may satisfy residents that HOV lanes at Capitol Expressway are not needed. 

Member Alvarado stated it would be helpful to the PAB if staff provided some idea as to the timeline for implementing improvements on Highway 101.

Member Cortese requested Laurel Provetti, City of San Jose, be invited to report to the PAB every other month as to the status of funding scenarios. 

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Capitol Expressway Urban Design Workshop was received.

Community Study of Safe Routes to Transit and Station Design for the Proposed DTEV Corridor from Transportation and Land Use Coalition

Chris Lepe, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), thanked Member Alvarado and her staff for applying for an Environmental Justice Transit Grant, which helped make the project possible.

Mr. Lepe noted the Safe Routes to Transit and Station Design Study was a collaborative effort between TALC, San Jose State University Transportation and Urban Planning Class, Services and Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), and Comite΄ Cesar Chavez.

Mr. Lepe stated that approximately 500 surveys, research of existing documents, community meetings, and personal observations were considered to come to the recommendation in the Report.  

Mr. Lepe advised that the Report focuses on the following two main issues:  1) access to where the future stations serviced by the DTEV Transit Corridor and 2) design of the station, amenities, and services they will provide. 

Mr. Lepe noted that the Mayfair Community is primarily a Latino Immigrant Community in East San Jose, which is bordered by major high traffic roads such as Highway 680, King Road, Alum Rock Avenue, and Jackson Avenue.   Mr. Lepe also noted that 3 of the 25 most dangerous intersections in the City of San Jose are located within the Mayfair Community.

Mr. Lepe stated that in 2003 there were 14 pedestrian collisions between pedestrians and automobiles and 9 collisions with bicycle.   The vast majority of respondents surveyed stated that traffic needs to be slowed down and additional crosswalks, lightening, and bike paths are needed. 

Mr. Lepe said with regard to stations, Mayfair residents requested an effort to keep the stations free of crime and vandalism and involvement in the process of station designs. 

At the Community Meetings, the residents requested stations include art reflecting the history and culture of the Community and their Homeland, secure bicycle storage, bilingual information, and security features to deter crime.  With regard to services,  33 percent of the residents in attendance responded they would like health-related services and 26 percent prioritized educational use, such as a library or bookstores.

Mr. Lepe said that the Summary of Recommendations are broken up into Pedestrian Design Recommendations, Bicycle Design Recommendations, Transit Design Recommendations, Education and Enforcement Recommendations, Access Recommendations, and, Convenience Recommendations.

Mr. Lepe stated that the Pedestrian Design Recommendations, residents recommended improving crosswalk design and convenience for pedestrians and provide pedestrian-level lighting along major pedestrian routes.   With regard to Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations residents requested bicycle lanes along major bike routes and exploring the need for major bicycle improvements. For Transit Design Recommendations, the residents requested involvement of the Community in the planning process.

Vice Chairperson Campos queried what residents felt they would need to encourage their attendance and participation.    Mr. Lepe responded that food, drinks, day care, and things connected to their realities would encourage them to attend meetings and to participate.

Mr. Lepe stated that with regard to Access Recommendations the residents requested information be provided in both English and Spanish, transit vehicles have more capacity to carry bicycles, as well as secure bicycle storage at the stations, and stops be well lit and have appropriate camera coverage. 

The residents stated it is important to locate important service around the transit stations and add real-time arrival information for the Convenience Recommendations.

Member Cortese left the Meeting at 3:57 p.m.

Mr. Lepe concluded that the DTEV Extension provides a great opportunity to work with the residents and the Mayfair Community to help make the DTEV Extension a success by turning dangerous streets into beautiful safe places to walk and bike and by turning normal transit stations into vibrant areas with art, culture, history, and technology.   Working together to improve the pedestrian/bicycle safety will not only reduce the fear and suffering of Mayfair residents but will in turn increase the ridership potentially of the new services and reduce a need for huge parking lots. 

Vice Chairperson Campos queried how the community will be notified of meetings.  Mr. Lepe responded residents and interested parties will be notified by telephone and handouts provided at schools, senior centers, and churches.  

Member Alvarado thanked Mr. Lepe and stated that the report was an extraordinary piece of work primarily because it shows the interest of the community. 

Member Alvarado recommended VTA and the City of San Jose need to consider some of the improvements that could be completed early on such as safety improvements and dealt with sooner rather than later.

Member Alvarado stated it is important that VTA recognize the need for bicycle and pedestrian trails.

Member Alvarado expressed concern regarding the differential responses between institutions in a public sector that look at westsiders differently than they do eastsiders.

Chairperson Chavez recommended to City Staff working to create zones around traffic improvements. 

M/S/C (Alvarado/McHugh) to accept the Safe Routes for the Mayfair Community Report and to refer the Report to VTA, City of San Jose, and County of Santa Clara for use in its planning and search for resources. 

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gilda M. Grozdanich, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors