##################################################################

TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #6: APRIL 7, 1999

##################################################################

***********************************************************
** NEXT MEETING: Wednesday April 21, 5 pm at CAFE BRASIL **
** 1410 Mission Street in Santa Cruz. All are invited. **
***********************************************************

The AGENDA for the April 21st meeting will include a discussion by
Les White, General Manager of the SCMTD, regarding the current status
(briefly) and future plans (more fully) of the ROUTE 17 EXPRESS BUS
SERVICE. It is possible that Chris Augenstein of the Valley Transit
Authority (VTA) of Santa Clara County will also present material on
this topic at the May 5 meeting, as he is unable to come on April 21.

TTT notes are posted on Janet and Michael Singer's website:

http://www.cruzio.com/~forums

We thank them for providing this service. The site contains links to
many related community issues, in addition to transportation-related issues.

=====================================================================
SPECIAL NOTE RE the UCSC PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE: THOSE INTERESTED
IN THIS TOPIC MAY WISH TO VIEW A REGULARLY UPDATED WEBSITE, where there
are links to relevant sites, along with strong opinions (including
those of project proponents) voiced:

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/Parking.html

(Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the TTT,
since we are not an advocacy group. This note is for information only)
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Want to know more about plans for HIGHWAY 17? Here is an ADDITIONAL
ANNOUNCEMENT from the Regional Transportation Commission:

"You're Invited to Attend the first meeting to review progress on the

"HIGHWAY 17 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY"

Friday, April 23rd at 10:00 am, in the Regional Transportation
Commission Office at 1523 Pacific Avenue (above Chefworks) in Santa
Cruz. Questions: please call Madeleine Hormann at 460-3208.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
[THIS NEXT ONE WILL BE A KEY MEETING, WORTH ATTENDING...]
Want to participate in the decision-making process for the Major
Transportation Investment Study (MTIS)? Come to the Regional
Transportation Commission's WORKSHOP at the Pasatiempo Inn on
Thursday, April 29, from 3:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Dinner will be free of
charge for Commissioners, their alternates, Commission staff and
members of the Commission's committees. The cost for others is $12.
Reservations are required: Call 460-3200 by Monday, April 26.
=====================================================================

Now, notes from the APRIL 7 meeting...

Sixteen people attended:

Debbie Bulger, Kim Chin, Bill Comfort, Bill Fieberling, Bruce Gabriel,
Scott Graham, Peter Littman, Dick Little, Marilyn Rigler, Mike Rotkin,
Peter Scott, Janet Singer, Michael Singer, Richard Stover, David
Walworth and Les White. The facilitator was Peter Littman.

A PRELIMINARY TOPIC:

Les White distributed a table of University (#1) bus ridership, responding
to an earlier request, showing numbers of students and staff/faculty
riders for recent months. An addition error was noted (by the Singers
of course (laughter)), and Les, appearing a little embarrassed, promised
a corrected version, which was later received---actually in much
expanded form...some of these data are appended to these notes. They
show average daily faculty/staff trips of 414 for November '98, 443 for
January '99 and 423 for February '99. It was noted that these numbers
should be divided by two to obtain "round trips" or "commuters". (This
means about 6 to 7 per cent of faculty and staff take the bus to campus,
since there are about 3,000 faculty and staff.)

ON THE LOBBYING VISIT TO WASHINGTON DC:

We welcomed Les White (and later, when he arrived, Mike Rotkin) upon
their return from their recent trip to Washington DC, where they were
lobbying, along with Supervisor Jan Beautz and Scotts Valley City
Councilmember Bart Cavallaro, to obtain funds for the Santa Cruz
Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD).

We spent the main part of our meeting learning about and discussing
their experiences in lobbying, and what the prospects might be for the
District to obtain federal funding.

Les White gave a rapid fire synopsis of the budgetary appropriattions
process in Washington. [NOTE: although I was writing as fast as
possible, there were lots of details I missed. Please provide
corrections or additions at the April 21st meeting. My editorial
comments and questions are in square brackets like these.] There are
basically three go-arounds that involve proposals and reconciliations:
(a) original proposals (March 15)
(b) modifications after negotiation, including with the President
(c) actual passed budget appropriations

We are concerned here with the TEA21 (Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century), which uses funds derived from gas tax revenue, and
is proposed to provide, in the budget now being formed, about
$28 billion for highway construction and $6.8 billion for transit.
(Last year reported out budgets were $27 billion for highways and
$5.8 billion for transit.) [NOTE: In addition to TEA21 funds there
are also "Surfact Transportation Program" (STP) funds and "Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality Program" (CMAQ) funds. It's not yet clear to
me whether we are lobbying for these funds in addition to the TEA21 funds.]

Transit Districts are classified in terms of population, those of over
200,000 population and those of under 200,000 population. Funding
procedures and formulas are different for each. Our district falls in
the latter category. With 93 buses logging over 8 million passenger
miles, the SCMTD has the HIGHEST ridership in the country for districts
of under 200,000 population.

This is clearly a factor that works in our favor, in that it shows we
are a community that is willing to support public transit. Mike
Rotkin pointed out that two other factors work in our favor---first,
our Representative Sam Farr sits on the House Appropriations
Committee, so that other members of Congress pay attention to what he
wants (Mike had a funny story related to this factor...call Mike if
you're interested), and second, Les White is known not only in our own
Congressional District, but also in those Districts from whence he
came, in the States of Washington and Oregon. Hence we may be able to
get the support of not just one Representative (our own), and not just
two Representatives (our own plus that of another who wants a vote
from our Representatives), but THREE Representatives.

Also working in our favor in Washington right now is the fact that
Senator Feinstein serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. In
addition, Senator Patty Murray from Washington (who also knows and
respects Les White) also serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

However, Congress is in a hard place, with the ironic situation that
although we are experiencing revenue surpluses (and should thus have
funds available to spend our our transit needs) the five-year spending
caps are still in place (which prevents such spending for our transit
needs). The talk is of gloom and doom even though there is money.

Our main interest in federal support is to provide funding for the
construction of our proposed Consolidated Operating Facility.
[Am I correct on this point?]

It was brought out that it also helps us, in the obtaining of federal
funds, that we tax ourselves (sales tax) for public transit---that is
looked upon favorably by the budget allocators.

A Five Year Projection of Revenues, along with Five Year Projections
of Capital Costs (both constrained by revenues and unconstrained by
revenues) was distributed. [It is in spread sheet format. I do not
completely understand it yet. It also contains acronyms that I have
yet to translate. [see appended Transit Acronym Dictionary (TAD),
which needs additions]]. I can provide a copy to anyone wishing one.
Over the five-year period FY 99 through FY 03 it projects revenues of
approximately $18.5 million, of which nearly $7 million would be in
FY 99. Five-year capital costs constrained by projected revenues
include approximately $14.1 million for 40 new buses; if unconstrained,
approximately $23.7 million would be spent for 63 new buses, including
9 new suburban Highway 17 buses. (The unconstrained budget outlines
our desires.)

Janet Singer asked what improvements were envisioned for the Santa
Cruz Metro Center.

Les indicated that there is a possibiltiy that the District may be
able to acquire the property now used by Greyhound. The Greyhound
building would be taken down, so that a consolidated center could
service both SCMTD buses and Greyhound. Each route should have a
dedicated specified dock, so that, for example, a No. 1 (University)
bus would always come in to the same dock, unlike the present
situation, where the #1, the #2 and the #3 all share the same dock.

Janet also asked about the 17 service, and whether it could come in to
Santa Cruz.

Les indicated that the 17 service needs to be extended to Watsonville,
and that it needs to serve the Santa Cruz Metro Center. He also
pointed out that the Clinton administration has revised the guidelines
that heretofore created the Peerless/Route 17 conflict, so that it is
now possible to run Route 17 service to the Metro Center. [NOTE: The
Route 17 service is our primary topic for our next meeting on April 21.]

ON RELATED TOPICS:

Dick Little asked: Why not talk with University administrators to see
what support might exist for park-and-ride lots?

Les mentioned that he was planning to meet on April 12 with Jan
Tepper, Candace Ward and Larry Pageler on this an related topics, and
Mike Rotkin mentioned that the Chancellor has expressed support for
park-and-ride, and that the Depot site (by the wharf) and the Seaside
lots may be possibilities for joint participation.

Bill Fieberling asked about budget timetables.

Les noted that we have a window of opportunity right now and that is
why we are considering the five year projections [distributed earlier].
If we can begin to bring partners to the table---the University,
Cabrillo, and a variety of federal, state and local funding sources,
then each player can pick up a little bit and maybe we can put
effective improvements together.

The District experienced a 30 per cent setback some years ago, along
with the mis-expenditure of the FEMA funds a few years ago, but is now
recovering strongly; "the community deserves a great deal of credit",
he said. Our population is willing to support public transit, both
through its use and by being willing to provide sales tax funding.

Les also spoke of his past experience vis-a-vis light rail in Vancouver
WA (which is a suburb of Portland) and in Portland, noting that it was
an air quality decision, not a transportation decision that encouraged
the creation of light rail there---a proposed freeway would contribute
too much to air pollution. Zoning is a key issue. He also mentioned
the importance of key individuals such as Earl Blumenauer (sp?) who was
instrumental. He also noted that industrial development lending
agencies like rail because it is dependable---the tracks won't disappear
overnight.

Mike Rotkin noted that there might not be the political will in Santa
Cruz County to sanction light rail.

[NOTE: Readers of these notes are urged to attend the facilitated
workshop to be devoted to the RTC's decisions regarding the MTIS
study. See the announcement near the top of these notes.]

We adjourned at about 7 pm. Our next meeting will be Wednesday,
April 21, at 5 pm at Cafe Brasil. (See agenda at the start of these notes.)

-- Peter Scott, note-taker.

============================================================================

APPENDICES:

University SCMTD bus billable ridership--1998-99

Note that ridership is lower for months when the University is not wholly
in session, such as during the summer, or during December. The billable
days are Monday-Friday; weekends and holidays are not counted. Divide
trips/day by 2 to get "round trips" or (roughly) "commuters".

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill days 23 21 21 22 20 22 19 19
Stdnts 21,155 18,723 29,931 185,641 141,787 80,051 148,338 132,618
Fac/Staf 6,966 6,098 6,801 9,559 8,286 6,344 8,414 8,045
Stud/day 920 892 1,425 8,438 7,089 3,639 7,807 6,980
F-S/day 303 290 324 435 414 288 443 423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 28,121 24,821 36,732 195,200 150,073 86,395 156,752 140,663

For those wishing a pdf (or .xlf) file containing data going back to
1983-84, including cost and budget data, let me know and I will send the
file. Hard copy sheets will also be available at the April 21 TTT meeting.
Thanks are due to Mark Dorfman and Larry Pageler for providing these data.
============================================================================

THE TAD

Transportation Acronym Dictionary

This was put together by Emily Reilly on March 20, 1999.
She says "Just a start. Add anything you can think of!!"

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Governments
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BLA Bicycle Lane Account
CAG County Association of Governments
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Project
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
COG Council of Governments
CTC City Transportation Commission
DOT Department of Transportation
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
EA Environmental Assessment
EIR Enviromental Impact Report
FC Face of curb
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY Fiscal Year
The "Green Book" is the AASHTO policy on geometric design of highways and streets
HES Hazard elimination and Safety
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
LOS Level of Service
LRDP Long Range Development Plan
LTC Local Transportation Commission
MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Fransisco Bay Area)
MTIS Major Transportation Investment Study
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PSR Project Study Report
PVTMA Pajaro Valley Transportation Management Association
ROW Right of Way
RFP Request For Proposal
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RTC see SCCRTC
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCATMA Santa Cruz Area Tranportation Management Association
SCCRTC Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
SCMTD Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
SHOPP State Highway Operations and Protection Program
SR1 State Route 1
SR9 State Route 9
STA ???
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
STP Surface Transportation Program (also pronounced stip)
TAMC Transportation Agency for Monterey County
TDA Transportation Development Act
TEA Transportation Enhancement Activities Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TMP Transportation Master Plan
TND Traditional Neighborhood Design
TMA Transportation Management Association
UCSC University of California at Santa Cruz
ULI Urban Land Institute
UZA ???

============================================================================

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS EMAIL LIST, WRITE TO PETER ||
|| drip@cats.ucsc.edu WHO WILL TAKE YOU OFF ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||