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

TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #15: AUGUST 18, 1999

##################################################################
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 <>
<> Starting at 5 pm, at EMILY'S BAKERY ON THE DECK <>
<> Mission and Laurel Streets in Santa Cruz <>
<> (note the special venue for this meeting) <>
<> (snacks will be available of course) <>
<> AGENDA: THE METROBASE (aka consolidated operating facility) <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

====================================================================
MISSION STATEMENT OF THE TTT:

** To improve the quality of life by reducing the use of automobiles:

** by educating ourselves and the public;
** by generating ideas for more effective transportation;
** by crossing traditional political, geographical and
psychological boundaries.

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

We (the TTT) are thinking of sponsoring and organizing a public forum on
the "Metrobase" proposal, a central "consolidated operating facility"
for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, now proposed to be
constructed on the Santa Cruz westside off of Swift Street. Our meeting
on September 1 will be devoted to a discussion of this proposal and
perhaps the proposed public forum. So come if you are interested.
Everyone is invited to our meetings.

NOTES from AUGUST 18:

Attending were Janet Beautz, Jennifer Blagar, Robert Burke, Kim Chin,
Bill Comfort, Bruce Gabriel, Jeff LeBlanc, Dick Little, Emily Reilly,
Peter Scott, Janet Singer, Michael Singer and Marcela Tavantzis.
We welcomed our special guest Linda Wilshusen, the Executive Director of
the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

MERCHANT/BUS PASS DISCOUNT PROPOSAL:

Following introductions, Kim Chin from the SCMTD mentioned a new
bus-pass program that could provide a "win-win" situation. The idea is
that merchants or employers or other businesses would offer discounts to
those customers holding a bus pass. The passes would be the usual price
($40 reg, $30 youth, $14 senior for a monthly pass) but the merchants
would benefit from new customers. the Transit District would promote
them. This idea has been tried in other communities (I forgot to write
down where) with good success.

Emily also noted that a 15-ride pass could work similarly, and Bruce
said he had put the 15-ride pass on the Metro Users Group (MUG) agenda.

Bill asked why 15-ride passes expired after only a month, but I was
distracted when Kim explained why, and I missed the response. Seems
like a good question to me.

QUESTIONS REGARDING RECENT SCCRTC RECOMMENDATIONS:

Below are the questions we handed around, followed by answers and notes
of discussion. Unattributed answers are those by Linda.

Q1: The "available" funds seemed to go from approximately $200 million
to approximately $260 million. Where did that $60 million come from?
Which amounts of the $260 million are earmarked, if any?

A1: Linda distributed page 28-56 of the staff report for the meeting,
entitled "Basic Revenue Information from the MTIS, years 1998-2015,
Santa Cruz to Watsonville Corridor. Here are the reproduced tables,
with slight corrections to the "totals" row for the first table:

POTENTIAL EXISTING SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR NEW CORRIDOR PROJECTS
-------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------+
17-yr tot | types of projects eligible | |
-------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+----------+
| $1998, | | hwy/ | | | bike/ | |
source | millions | all | road | bus | rail | ped | notes |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+
CAPITAL FUNDS: |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+
AB2766 | 4.4 | | | x | x | x | assumes |
| | | | | | | $300K/yr |
Prop 116 | 11.0 | | | | x | | |
RTIP | 120.2 | x | x | x | x | x | excludes |
| | | | | | | current |
| | | | | | | commits |
| | | | | | +----------+
ITIP | 22.8 | | x | | | | excludes |
| | | | | | | current |
| | | | | | | commits |
| | | | | | +----------+
PVEA | 1.8 | | | x | x | x | subj to |
| | | | | | | legis |
| | | | | | | approval |
fed sec 5307 | 15.7 | | | x | | | |
fed sec 5309 | 4.6 | | | x | x | | |
STP | 14.2 | x | x | x | x | x | assumes |
| | | | | | | 25% of |
| | | | | | | availabl |
| | | | | | | revenues |
| | | | | | +----------+
CMAQ | 6.1 | | | x | x | x | assumes |
| | | | | | | 25% of |
| | | | | | | availabl |
| | | | | | | revenues |
| | | | | | +----------+
TEA | 5.7 | | | x | x | x | assumes |
| | | | | | | 25% of |
| | | | | | | availbl |
| | | | | | | revenues |
| | | | | | +----------+
AB1475 | 0.2 | | | | | x | pending |
| | | | | | | legis |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+
ADDITIONAL CAP FUNDS IDENTIFIED BY SCMTD: |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+
fed sec 5307 | 21.3 | | | x | | | |
fed sec 5309 | 20.9 | | | x | x | | |
STA | 11.9 | | | x | x | | |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+
totals: | 260.8 | 134.4 | 157.2 | 226.8 | 200.8 | 152.6 | |
-------------+-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+----------+

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| POTENTIAL NEW SOURCES OF FUNDS |
+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| potential | ($1998, | |
| new funds | millions) | notes |
+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
|local sales tax | | |
| 1/4 cent, or | 102.0 | based on $6 million per |
| | | year revenues |
| 1/2 cent(SCA 3) | 204.0 | based on $12 million per |
| | | year revenues |
| --or-- | | |
| | | |
|local gas tax | | |
| 5 cents/gal, or | 102.0 | based on $6 million per |
| | | year revenues |
| 10 cents/gal | 102.0 | based on $12 million per |
| | | year revenues |
|fed earmark (Farr) | 25.0 | rough estimate |
|state $8 billion | 60.0 | assumes $250 per capita |
|bond measure | | |
+-------------------+-----------+--------------------------+

One may see from the first table that the additional $60 million (actually
$54.1 million) are funds identified by the SCMTD. The earmarked funds (marked
by "x") are shown also in the table.

Q2: The press release [from the RTC] states that the highway 1 widening
is expected to cost about $200 million, but earlier estimates mention
$245 million. How come? What would $200 million include?

A2: Estimates vary from $185 million to $245 million for the stretch of
highway 1 from the fishhook to State Park Drive. We don't really know
how much it will cost. A rule of thumb statewide is about $20 million
per lane-mile.

Q3: What would be the meaning or result of designating Route 1 as a
"focus" route? Is this likely?

A3: Hwy 1 is an interregional route, but is not likely to be designated
as a "focus" route, which by statute designates routes that are not in
an urbanized area. Hwys 99 and 395 are examples of focus routes. The
decision as to whether our Hwy 1 is a focus route would be made by
Caltrans, not the California Transportation Commission. We are going to
have to fight to get the $22.8 million of interregional funds noted in
the table above. To get more? Not likely.

Q4: What is the status of the auxiliary lane project earlier approved,
and how would this mesh with the current widening proposal?

A4: The auxiliary lane [fishhook] project is funded and moving ahead.
The Hwy 1 widening project is not yet funded. To mesh the two would
require that the fishhook project be halted, so this would hold that
project up. It is not clear how the two could be easily meshed.

Bruce suggested that a proactive initiative might now designate the
auxiliary lanes as "HOT" lanes, and Jan Beautz wondered also whether the
fishhook project as a "HOT" lane project. Linda suggested that one can
always change things, but it would mean slowing the current project
down.

Q5: Is there any way that the Proposition 116's $11 million will be
available to us for anything?

A5: There is currently legislation being considered to extend Prop 116
beyond its current expiration date of June 2000, and to allow those
funds to be spent to acquire the UP right-of-way. It is not known what
the outcome of this legislation will be. There are other counties
(Monterey: $17 million, Irvine: $125 million, [and one or two others
(Sonoma? Marin?) I forgot to note]) that are also interested in
extending the deadline for Prop 116, so we are not alone. As currently
written, Prop 116 funds can be spent only for planned rail projects.

Michael Singer asked if the CTC would be re-visiting Prop 116, and
wondered what the expected result would be. Linda said that we will be
in Sacramento next month.

Q6: What is the value to us of purchasing the UP right-of-way? What
will be the consequence of such a purchase? Presumably UP will still
want to use the tracks to run freight cars to the cement plant. For how
long? What other uses of the right-of-way would be feasible? Would the
right-of-way actually be usable for anything besides rail cars? How
will possibilities for bikes and peds on the right-of-way be
investigated?

A6: It is believed that the cement plant will have use for the rail
service for at least another 25 to 30 years. UP has also expressed an
interest in selling the right-of-way, but wants to ensure that
capability for freight service for coal and aggregate will continue.
The cement plant is the main customer, but there is also lumber that is
brought down the San Lorenzo Valley by Big Trees to be picked up by UP
trains.

Bill said that the cement plant ships 800,000 tons/year, with 15%
mandated [?] to go via rail.

Dick Little thought there would not be room for pedestrians and bicycles
along with rail cars. Linda acknowledged that [at least for the current
right-of-way dimensions]. She also said there is the question about who
will be the lead agency for a project of acquiring the right-of-way. It
could be the RTC, or the County, or the SCMTD, or a joint combination of
any or all of these. Emily asked how this decision is reached, and Jan
Beautz said it is complex, with the different groups involved; also the
project can't be loaded onto an unwelcoming body.

Emily asked whether there were examples of combined use of rail and
trails ("rails WITH trails"). Linda said that existing similar projects
were usually quite short and had lots of right-of-way already. One cost
is that of liability protection, but the amount is not known.

Dick Little asked whether Roaring Camp might be interested in running a
trolley to Capitola. Linda said that the track would need to be
upgraded, but to what extent is not certain. Janet Singer said that
Dennis Norton had spoken with Roaring Camp but they were not interested.

Michael Singer asked if UP will do track repair. Linda noted that UP is
critical of SP for its previous lack of attention to the track
condition, and will keep the track better maintained, but will not
upgrade the track to class 2. She also noted that they now change crews
in Aptos, and Bill noted that it was a noisy process.

Dick also asked about the idea of rail in the freeway median, noting
that it could be faster than rail in the rail right-of-way. Linda noted
that the idea was considered in the MTIS process, but was rejected.

We never got to discussing the value of purchasing the right-of-way.

Q7: What are possible ways that the electric bicycle program might be
administered?

A7: As with the rail right-of-way acquisition project, there is the
question of who will be the lead agency in the electric bicycle project.
There is also the question of how it might be run. If the Commission,
for example, just purchased 1000 e-bikes and sold them at a discount,
buyers might just re-sell them, pocketing the money---not a workable
scheme. If the Commission rented them, there could be other
complications. These are puzzles that need to be worked out.

Q8: What's the story about SCA 3? Will it actually apply in Santa Cruz
County, given that we already have a 1/2 per cent sales tax for buses?

A8: SCA 3, if passed in both the State and the County, could lead to
supply about $20 million per year for transportation projects in Santa
Cruz County, starting in 2001, through a 1/2 cent increase in the sales
tax. The legislation is now in process in the Sate Legislature, and
therefore still subject to amendments.

Q9: What is the process for incorporating the items on the wish list
into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)?

A9: Right now, the August 5 votes constitute recommendations. At the
next meeting of the SCCRTC (September 2, 8:30 am, Board of Supervisors
Chambers in the County Government Center) there will likely be a
resolution ratifying the August 5 decisions, and at the October meeting
of the SCCRTC (October 7) there will be discussion about what needs to
happen to see that the various different projects are actually realized.

METROBASE DISCUSSION ON FOR THE NEXT MEETING SEPT 1:

We decided to discuss, and perhaps plan for the idea of a TTT-sponsored
forum on the "Metrobase" (Consolidated Operating Facility for the SCMTD)
proposal at our next meeting, to be held on the deck of EMILY'S BAKERY
starting at 5 pm on SEPTEMBER 1. Kim said he would speak with Les White
to see whether Les could come to the meeting.

-- Peter Scott, note-taker

APPENDICES:

1. A report entitled "The Negative Impact of Automobiles", released in
June of this year by the California Planning and Conservation League, is
available on the web at

http://www.pcl.org/zev/impact.html

It contains a very large list of references. It is 9 pages and may be
downloaded for free.

2. An article by Keith Bradsher in the August 23 New York Times notes
that the Ford Motor Company is launching "one of the largest advertising
campaigns ever in the auto industry" in an effort to sell its line of
Sport Utility Vehicles. The slogan: "NO BOUNDARIES". Ford's "EXCURSION"
the world's largest SUV, officially goes on sale next month. Ad text:
"Introducing Ford outfitters, offering you the most far-reaching sport
utilities on Earth, created to take you where the stories begin and never
end."

Keith Bradsher notes that "Industry surveys have shown that most SUVs
are actually used for commuting, running errands and other mundane
tasks." This was acknowledged by a Ford spokesman, who said "SUVs are
about image, they're about taking people where they want to go, not
necessarily where they really go."

Remember: More dollars are spent just to advertise autos than are spent
on the entire capital, operating and maintenance budget for all of public
transportation nationwide.

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