Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council (29)TO: of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 2 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: September 16, 1996 CMR:390:96 SUBJECT:Recommendation to Support Measures A and B REQUEST A group named the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief has developed a proposal for funding and implementing a comprehensive package of transportation improvement projects throughout Santa Clara County. The strategy involves two measures to be voted on by the citizens of Santa Clara County. One measure (Measure B) authorizes the enactment of a half-cent sales tax for general County purposes. Another measure (Measure A) is an advisory measure indicating that the intent is to use the funds from the new half-cent sales tax for a specified list of transportation improvements. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has already taken the necessary actions to place Measures A and B on the ballot for the November 5, 1996 general election. The Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief has requested that the Palo Alto City Council endorse Measures A and B. Being an integral part of Santa Clara County and having a long-standing interest and active participation in transportation issues in the County, it is appropriate that the Council take a formal position with respect to these two measures. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Council endorse both Measure A and Measure B, as developed by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief, and as included in the November 5, 1996 general election. POLICY IMPLICATIONS. Palo Alto has a long-standing tradition of involvement and leadership in regional transportation issues, and has shown strong continuous support for transit in general and~ Caltrain in particular. The list of projects identified in Measure A relate to safety, signal CMR:390:96 Page 1 of 8 coordination, Caltrain, light rail transit, street maintenance, bicycle facilities, transit for seniors and persons with disabilities, and roadway improvements in areas of critical need. All of these types of projects are consistent with general City policies that emphasize transit, bicycles, and operational improvements at critical locations. The use of a half-cent sales tax for these types of transportation projects is also consistent with previous Council actions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For more than a decade, funding for transportation improvements has shifted from a predominately federal/state role to one that is increasingly a local role. Although the amount of money available from federal/state funding is still substantial, the financial need for proposed projects exceeds the amount of federal!state funding. Therefore, counties throughout Califomia have increasingly instituted tax measures to generate local funding for specific transportation projects. One of the pioneering efforts was Measure A, passed by Santa Clara County voters in November 1984, which established a half-cent sales tax program for ten years, to be used for specified highway improvements on Routes 85, 101, and 237. The Santa Clara County Traffic Authority was formed to administer the program and, by all indications, has done so in a very positive manner in terms of sensitivity, responsiveness, professionalism, efficiency, and achievement. Part of Measure A included a sunset provision at the end of the ten years, whereby the half-cent sales tax would terminate April 1, 1995 (and it did), and the Traffic Authority would cease operations by April 1, 1997. In anticipation of the eventual cessation of the Measure A half-cent sales tax in 1995, coupled with a recognition of the need for substantial additional funding for transportation projects (as well as a strong interest in assuring that Santa Clara Cotmty is in a solid competitive position for federal, state and regional transportation funding programs), the Citizen Coalition for Traffic Relief was formed, to provide leadership in developing a strategy for pursuing needed transportation improvements in Santa Clara County. Eventually a strategy was developed that included a new half-cent sales tax (which was to have begun in April 1995 and continue for a period of 20 years), a list of transportation improvement projects (including a balance between transit and highways), and provision for the formation of a Local Transportation Authority to oversee the implementation of the program. This plan was on the ballot as Measure A (affectionately referred to as the Son CMR:390:96 Page 2 of 8 of Measure A) in November 1992, and received an afftrmative vote of 55 percent by the electorate. Subsequent court ridings, in response to a lawsuit, established that two-thirds voter approval was required for the 1992 Measure A. Therefore, the 1992 Measure A is not valid. Current Proposal During the past year, the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief has worked to develop a new proposal to address transportation fimding issues in Santa Clara County. The Coalition is comprised of more than 100 individuals and organizations representing industry, labor, environmental groups, senior citizens, transit organizations, health care organizations and others interested in developing a solution to congestion and transportation problems. The Coalition has developed a package that includes a new half- cent sales tax (to begin in’April 1997 and continue for a 9-year period), a balanced list of specific transportation improvement projects that will benefit all citizens of Santa Clara County, and a Citizen Watchdog Committee to oversee and report to the public on how the funds are being spent. The Coalition’s proposal, which by action of the Board of Supervisors will be on the November 5, 1996 ballot, is in the form of two separate measures. Measure B authorizes the enactment of a half-cent sales tax, for general County purposes for a period of nine years. Measure A is an advisory measure indicating that the intent is to use the funds from the new half-cent sales tax for a specified list of transportation improvements. Information provided by the County Counsel indicates that Measures A and B can pass by a simple majority vote and do not require a two-thirds vote. Both Measure A and Measure B must receive a majority vote, in order for the specified transportation improvements to be implemented. A summary of information on Measures A and B (including ballot language, more detailed text describing the measures, and fact sheets for each transpbrtation improvement project) has been provided by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief and is included as Attachment A. In summary, Measure A is an advisory measure establishing transportation funding priorities for Santa Clara County, if any new tax revenue is approved by the voters. The list of transportation improvement projects is shown in Exhibit 1. More detailed fact sheets for each project are included as part of Attachment A. Measure B would authorize the enactment of a one-half cent sales tax for general County purposes, with three mandatory restrictions. The restrictions are: (1) the tax must expire in nine years, (2) an independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must review all expenditures, and (3) the independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must consist of private citizens, not elected otticials. The independent Citizens Watchdog Committee is to be comprised CMR:390:96 Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 CITIZENS COALITION FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF -- PROJECT AND DESCRIPTION LIST -- Traffic Signal Synchronization: Improving the signal timing on all eight county expressways -- 75 miles in len~h -- by adding video surveillance monitoring. This advanced approach to signal synchrottization allows adjustments due to poor weather conditions, traffic accidents and time of day. The eight county expressways are Almaden, Capitol, Central, Foothill, Lawrence, Monta~e, Oregon, and San Tomas. Santa Clara County connection to BART: Connecting Santa Clara County to the BART system by adding a CalTrain-type rail line on the UP tracks between downtown and east San Jose, Milpitas and up to BART in Alameda County, for weekday service. Interchange Improvements: Improving key interchanges to ease bottlenecks and improve traffic flow. The four interchanges are: 237/880 in lVfilpitas, 85/101 at Shoreline in Mountain View, 85/87 in the ALmaden Valley of San Jose and 85/101 near Bernal Road in South San Jose. Cal-Train Improvements from San Jose North: Improving Cal-Train rail service by adding trains and improving facilities from San Jose to Palo Alto. Service improvements would include an increase from 60 to 86 trains per day, with service time improved from every hour to every 30 minutes. In addition, facility improvements will be made all along the line to improve bus and bike access, enhance parking, improve lighting and shelters. Highway 101: Widening Highway 101, from Bemal Road in South San Jose to Cochrane Road in North Morgan Hill, from two to three lanes. This extra lane in each direction makes this eight mile stretch consistent with the number of lanes from Morgan Hill south to the countyline. No additional exits or entrances will be added to this eight-mile stretch. Cal-Train Improvements between Gilroy and San Jose: Improving Cal-Train rail service by adding trains and improving facilities between Gilroy and San Jose. Service enhancement will include cross commute service during the week-days, and adding week-end service. Safety Improvements: Preventing head-on collisions by placing a safey barrier down the middle of Highway 85, and building additional truck climbing lanes and pull-outs on Highway 152, the Pacheco Pass, to help improve one of the state’s most dangerous stretches of roadway. Page 4 of 8 Tasman East Light Rail Line: Extending the current Light Rail system to Milpitas and Northeast San Jose, known as the Tasman Light tLail line. This line will connect to the existing Guadalupe line that serves Santa Clara and San Jose, as well as the Tasman West Light Rail line that extends through north Sunnyvale and terminates at downtown Mountain View at the Cal-Train station at Castro Street. Highway 880: Widening Highway 880, to a total of three lanes in each direction, from Highway 237 in Milpitas to Highway 101 in San Jose. Vasona Light Rail Line: Building the first stage of the Vasona Light Rail line from downtown San Jose to the San Jose Arena/Cal-Train station and then to downtown Campbell, with eventual service to Los Gatos. Highway 17: Improving Highway 17 between Lark Avenue in Los Gatos and Highway 280 in San Jose through spot improvements in the commute directions. Capitol Light Rail Line: Building the first stage of the Capitol Light Rail line from northeast San Jose -- the connection to the Tasman line - down to Capitol Avenue through east San Jose, to the Alum Rock area, with eventual service to Eastridge. Highway 87: Widening Highway 87 from two to three lanes in each direction from Highway 85 to Highway 101. Transit Service for Seniors and the Disabled: Providing improved transit service for seniors, the disabled and handicapped by purchasing low floor vehicles for future light rail lines. Maintaining Streets and Filling Potholes: Improving local streets and filling potholes in all fifteen ckies and on county road and expressways by significantly enhancing local funds for street repair and maintenance. Bicycle Facilities: Improving bicycle facilities throughout the county by building projects identified in the T-2010 Bicycle Plan, reviewed and adopted by the County Bicycle Commission. This would double the funds available for bicycle projects that currently are spent in Santa Clara County, to help eliminate key gaps in the countywide bicycle network. Page 5 of 8 of 17 private citizens and represent a balance of viewpoints, geography, age, gender, and etlmicity. Issues for Palo Alto Based upon a review of the limited information available, as well as staff participation .in some of the discussions that have led to this proposal, staff has identified several issues that have some pertinence to Council consideration of this matter. _Issue 1: Need for Proposed Strate_w¢, The demonstrated and repetitive concern expressed by residents of Santa Clara County concerning traffic congestion, their interest in and support of transportation improvements throughout Santa Clara County, and the increasingly apparent reality that federal/state funds are diminishing and the need for local funds is increasing, establishes the apparent and even essential need for the proposed strategy embodied in Measures A and B. Issue 2: Ma_mfitude and Duration of the Proposed Plan and Tax The proposal incorporated within Measures A and B for a one-half cent sales tax for a period of nine years is good. It is similar to the 1994 Measure A (10 years) and is long enough to accomplish some major improvement projects and still keep a focus on specific achievements. It is superior to the 1992 Measure A proposal (20 years), which was much larger in scale and more vague in terms of expected results. Issue 3: Projects Specified for Funding Priority in Measure A The list of projects included for fimding, as shown in Exhibit 1, is a good balance between transit and highways, and includes a provision for bicycles as well as a local component for street maintenance. The projects are spread geographically throughout the County, and include new construction, improvements to~ existing transit and traffic operations, and basic street maintenance. The listed projects address specific problems, and include specific solutions to address those problems. As such, the list of projects is artfully crafted and balanced, and responds to diverse needs and interests. Issue 4: Direct Effects on Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto will benefit directly from the receipt of approximately $278,000 per year, for each of the nine years, for the specified purpose of maintaining City streets. The City will also benefit from proposed improvements to Caltrain service and facilities, as well as bicycle facilities. While these CMR:390:96 Page 6 of 8 improvements have not been specifically identified, such items as the addition of more Caltrain service and improvements to the two Palo Alto Caltrain Stations (including improvement of the California Avenue Ped/Bike under-crossing) are likely candidates for consideration. Issue 5: Irnplementation Mechanisms Contrary to the 1984 Measure A, which established a separate entity (Traffic Authority) for the express purpose of project implementation, and the 1992 Measure A proposal which established a separate entity (Local Transportation Authority), the 1996 Measures A and B will be implemented through the County, in conjunction with other existing governmental agencies (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Peninsula Commute Joint Powers Board and local Cities). In addition, a Citizens Watchdog Committee, comprised of 17 private citizens (no elected officials) with broad representation from diverse interests and geography, will review and report annually to the public on progress and expenditures. This appears to be an appropriate, albeit different, approach that has the benefit of not establishing a new governmental entity, while still maintaining accountability to the public. Summary_ The proposal put forth by the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief, as embodied in Measures A and B, includes the imposition of a one-half-cent sales tax for a period of nine years, to fund a diverse list of specific transportation improvement projects throughout Santa Clara County. The program will be implemented through existing governmental agencies (Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Peninsula Commute Joint Powers Board and individual local cities). A Citizens Watchdog Committee, comprised of 17 private citizens (no elected officials) with broad representation from diverse interests and geography, will review and report annually to the public on progress and expenditures. Palo Alto stands to gain directly from the subventions that will come to the City for street maintenance, as well as projects that improve Caltrain services and facilities and bicycle facilities. Palo Alto will also benefit indirectly from improved transit services and reduced roadway congestion, as Palo Alto residents travel elsewhere throughout the County and non-residents travel tO Palo Alto for work, commerce, and other purposes. Staff concludes that the program represented in Measures A and B is a good one; has strong support from a diverse coalition of business, environmental, labor, health, senior and neighborhood leaders and organizations; and is worthy ofPalo Alto’s strong support. CMR:390:96 Page 7 of 8 FISCAL IMPACT The City of Palo Alto will benefit directly from the receipt of approximately $278,000 per year for each of nine years, for the specified purpose of maintaining City streets. The City will also benefit from proposed improvements to Caltrain service and facilities, as well as bicycle facilities, which might otherwise require local City funding participation. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT No environmental analysis is required at this time in order for Council to take a position with respect to these two measures for the November 5, 1996 ballot. However, if the two measures are approved by voters in the general election, proper environmental analysis will be required for each of the projects and would normally occur as part of the project development and review process. Some of the projects are already at an advanced stage of design development and environmental analysis. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Information provided by the Citizens Coalition For Traffic Relief Prepared By:Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: NNETH scrmEn3E / Director of Planning and Community Environment GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works City Manager Approval: CC:Supervisor Dianne McKenna Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group (Gary Burke, Leslee Coleman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Peter Cipolla, Michael Evanhoe) Andy Coe, Stanford University Carl Guardino, Hewlett-Packard CMR:390:96 Page 8 of 8 ;’TACHMENT A Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief MEASURES A & B -- Ballot Language -- Text of Full Measures -- aps of MeasureA Projects SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY MEASURE Measure . ADVISORY VO.TE ONLY THIS MEASURE DOES NOT INCREASE TAXES - IT RECOMMENDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PRIORITIES. Shall any new sales tax revenues approved by voters fund the following transportation improvements? f’LX streets, potholes; link to BART; synchronize all expressways; build Tasman, Capitol, Vasona Light Rail lines; Widen Highways 880, 101, 87, 17; increase CalTrain service; upgrade 2371880, 85/101, 85/87 interchanges; improve safety: Pacheco Pass, Highway85; expand bicycle routes; improve senior, disabled transit service. These projects shall be implemented within nine years. Administrative expenses shall be limited to 1/2 of I percent maximum. Yes file:A3LangZZ MEASURE A -- ADVISORY MEASURE ONLY Measure A is NOT a tax. It is an advisory measure ~hat ~ates Santa Cl~am County voters’ intent that any new sales tax funds be spent on the following transportation hnprovements: PROJECT PACKAGE: Maintaining Street-and Filling Potholes: Improving local streets and filling tholes in all f cen ties and on county roads and expressways by funding Santa Clam County connection to BART: Connecting Santa Clam County to BART by adding a CalTrain-typ¢ rail line on the UP tracks between downtown San Jose, through east San Jose and Milpitns, and up to the BART system in Alameda County for weekday service. Traffic Signal Synchronization: Improving the signal timing on all eight county expressways - Almade~ Capitol, Central, Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, Oregon, and San Tomas. *Tasman East Light Rail Line: Extending the current Light Rail system to Milpitas and Northeast San Jose. Highway 880: Widening Highway 880, to a total of three lanes in each direction, from Highway 237 in Milpitas to Highway I01 in San Jose. Interchange Improvements: Improving key interchanges at 237/880 in Milpi.tns, 85/101 in Mountain View, 85/87 in the Almaden Valley of San Jose and 85/101 near Bernal l~ad in South San Jose. Transit Service for Seniors and the Disabled: Providing improved transit service for s~dors and the disabled by purchasing low floor vehicles for all future light rail lines. Safety Improvement.s: Preventing head-on collisions by placing a safety barrier in .the Highway 85 median, and building adch’tional track climbing lanes and pull-outs on Highway 152 over the Pacheco Pass. CaloTrain Improvements from San Jose North: Improving CalTrain commuter rail service by adding trains and improving facif!’ties from San Jose to Palo Alto. Highway 101: Widening Highway 101, from Bernal Roadin South San Jose to Cochrane Road in NotCh Morgz.u Hill, from two to three lanes in each direction. CalTrain Improvements between Gilroy and San Jose: .Improving CalTrain rail service by adding Uains and improving facilities betwe¢ll Gi]roy and Sail Jose. Highway 17: Widening Highway 17 and improving k~y interctmnges.~ Lark Aventt~ in Los C-atos and Highway 280 in San Jose. Capitol.Light Rail Line:.Building the Capitol Light Raft line from no~l~nst San Jose - the connection to lhe Tasman line -down Capitol Avvaue through east SanJose to the Alum Rock Highway 87: Widening Highway 87 fium two to three lanes in .each direction from Highway 85 to San Jose International Airport and Highway 101. Vasona Light Rail Line: Building.the Vasona Light Rail line from downtown San Jose to the Gatos. Bicycle Facilities: Improving bicycle facilities throughout the county to improve safety and eliminate key gal~ in the countywklc t~icycle network. In addition, Io~tl decision-makers should aggressively pursue other regional, state and federal funds to leverage 1o~ funds so that Waffle relief and mobility projects can be delivered more quickly, and build a~Iditional transportation and raft transit improvements that are needed to serve Santa Clara County. Finally, Measure A calls for the following accountability provisions: ¯Only 0.5 percent of the funds can be used for staff salaries and administration, reserving 99.5 pe~nt of the funds for project delivery. ¯All projects can be implemented within nine years. file:A3Pamph SANTA ,,CLARA COUNTY, 1/2 CENT SALES TAX MEASURE Measure ___. Shall the ~Board of Supervisors enact a 1/2 cent sales tax for general county purposes, with the following mandatory restrictions? The sales tax must expire after ~. A Citizens Watchdog Committee,selected independently with direction from the County Grand Jury and the League Of Women Voters, will conduct ~.y_.~..fl_X audits of all sales tax expenditures. These yearly sales tax expenditure audits must be reported to the .public and published in local newspapers. Yes f’de:A3LangYY MEASURE B This measure authorizes the enactment of a 1/2 cent sales tax for general county purposes, with the following mandatory restrictions: The tax must expire in nine years. If approved by the voters, this half-cent sales tax must expire within nine years. The length of this tax cannot be extended without a vote ~- and the approval - of the residents of Santa Clara County. An independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must review all expenditures. Responsibilities *Public hearings and reports: The Committee must hold public hearings and issue reports, on at least an annual basis, to inform Santa Clara County residents how the funds are being spent. The hearings mustbe held in full compliance with the Brown Act, Callfomia’s open meeting law, with information announcing the hearings well-publicized and posted in advance. *Annual Independent Audits: The Committee must contract with an Independent Auditor on an annual basis, to ensure our tax dollars are being spent wisely. *Published Results of Audits and Annual Reports: The Committee must publish the results of the Independent Audit and the Annual Report in local newspapers. In addition, copies of these documents must be made available to the public at-large. The independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must consist of private citizens, not elected officials. >Selection Process: To ensure that members of the Citizens Watchdog Committee are independent, the selection process will be conducted with the help of the League of Women Voters and the County Grand Jury. >Term Limits: To ensure that citizens from throughout the county h~ive an opportunity to serve on the independent Citizens Watchdog Committee, the at-large members will be limited to a single two-year term. >Membership; The independent Citizens Watchdog Committee will consiSt of 17 private citizens from throughout Santa Clara County. Ten members will be selected at-large from throughout the county to ensure geographic balimce, .with two of theten members residing in each of the five Supervisoral districts. " ’ * District 1: Gilroy, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan I-rdl, south San Jose * District 2: Downtown San Jose, east San Jose, W’tllow Glen *District 3: IvIilpitas, portions of northeast, east and southeast San Jose, portions of Sunnyvale *District 4: Campbell, west San Jose, Cambrian and Santa Clara *District 5: Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos I-fills, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Saratoga, Stanford and portions of Sunnyvale Seven members will be selected to reflect a balance of viewpoints across the county: * A representative from the California Taxpayers Association *A representative from the San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce *A representative from the Sierra Club *A representative from the South Bay Labor Council *A representative from the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group *A repres.entative from the Greenbelt Alliance *A representative from the Building and Construction Trades Coun(fl The seventeen members must provide a balance of viewpoints, geography, age, gender and etlmieity to represent the different perspectives of taxpayers throughout Santa Clara County. >Eligibility: The members must be private citizens who live or work in Santa Clara County. No elected city, county, special district, state or federal public office holder will be eligible to serve as a member of the Citizens Watchdog Committee. file:A3PamphB ORDINANCE NO. I~S AN ORDINANCE SETTING AN ADVISORY MF.u~I.IRE RECOMMENDING SALES.. TAX EXPENDITURE PRIORYI’IES ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEB~ER 5, 1996 ELECTION SUMMARY Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9603, this ordinance sets an advisory memsure concerning Santa Clam County sales tax exl~ndimms priorities for voter appro<,al at the elect~on set for November 6, 1996. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, ordains as follows: SECTION 1 Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9603, an advisory measure is hereby set for voter approval at the election set for November 6, 1996. The full text of the advisory measure is as follows: This measure is NOT a tax. It is an advisory measure that states Santa Clam County voters’ intent that any new sales tax funds be spent on the following transportation improvements: PROJECT PACKAGE: Maintaining Streets and Filling Pgtholes: Improving local streets and ftlling potholes in all fLf~een cities and on county ro~ds and expressways by funding greatly needed street maintenance and repair. Santa Clara county connection to BART: Connecting Santa Clam County to BAKT by adding a CalTrain-type rail line on the UP tracks between downtown San Jose, through east San Jose and Milpitas, and up to the BART system in Alameda County for weekday service. Traffic Signal Synchronization: Improving the signal timing on all eight county expressways - Almaden, Capitol, Central, Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, Oregon, and San Tomas. Tasman East Light Raft Line: Extending the cunent Light Rail system to MTlpitas and Northeast San Jose. Highway 880: Widening Highway 880, to a total of three lanes in each direction, from ¯ Highway 237 in Milpitas to Highway 101 in San Jose. .Interchange Improvements: Improving key interchanges at 237/880 in l~/~lpit~, 85/101 in Mountain View, 85/87 in the Almaden Valley of San Jos~ and 85/101 near Bemal Road in South San Jose. Transit Service for Seniors and the Disabled: Providing improved transit sc~icc for seniors and the disabled by purchasing low floor vehicles for all future-light rail lines. Safety Improvements: Preventing head-on coIIisions by placing a safety barrier in the Highway 85 m~lian, and building additional truck climbing lanes and pull-~uts on Highway 152 over the Pache.r.o Pass. Cal-Train Improvements from San Jose North: Improving CalTrain commuter rail servic~ by adding trains and Improving facilities from San ~Ios~ to Pale Alto. t~hway 101: Widening Highway 101, from B~rnal Road in South San Iosc to Cochrane Road in North Morgan Hill, from two to three lan~s in ~ach direction. C~lTrain Improvements bet~ween Gilroy and San Jose: Improving CalTrain rail service by adding trains and improving facilities between Gilroy and San -2- ®Highway 17: Widening Highway. 17 and improving key interchanges between Lark Avenue in Los Gatos and Highway 280 in San Jose. ®~.apitol Light Rail Line: Building the Capitol Light Rail line from northeast San Jose - the conmction to the Tasman line - down Capitol Avenue through east San Jose to the Alum Rock area, with eventual service to Eastridge. Highway 87: Widening Highway 87 from two to three lanes in each direction from Highway 85 to San Jose International Airport and Highway 101. o Vasona Light Rail Line: Building the Vasona Light Rail line from downtown San lose to the San Jose Arena/CalTmin station and on to downtown. Campbell, with eventual - service to Los Gatos. ®Bicycle Facilities: Improving bicycle facilities throughout the county to improve safety and eliminate key gaps in the county wide bicycle network. In addition, local decision-makers should aggressively pursue other regional, state and federal funds to leverage local funds so that traffic relief and mobility projects can be ¯delivered more quickly, and build additional transportation and rail tramit improvements that are needed to serve Santa Clam County. F’mally, this measure calls for the following accountability provisions: 0nly 0.5 percent of the funds can be used for staff salaries and administration, reserving 99.5 percent of the funds for project delivery. o All projects can be implemented within nine years. SECTION 2 The abbreviated statement of the measure for inclusion on the ballot pursttmt to California Elections Code Section 13247 shall be as follows: -3- SANTA ~ COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY MEASURE Measure ADVISORY VOTE ONLY THIS MEASURE DOES NOT INCREASE TAXES - IT RECOMMENDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PRIORITIES. Shall any new sales tax revenues approved by voters fund the following transportation improvements? ¯fix streets, potholes; ® .link to BART; ¯synchronize all expressways; ~build Tasmau, Capitol, Vasona Light Rail lines; ¯widen Highways 880, 101, 87, 17; ¯upgrade 237/880, 85/101, 85/87 interehanges; ~ -improve safety: Paeheeo Pass, Highway 85; ¯expand bicycle routes; ®improve senior, disabled transit service. These projects shall be implemented within nine years... Administrative expenses shall be limited to 1/2 of 1 percent maximum. Yes No -4- SECTION 3 This ordimaee, being aa ordinance calling and relating to an election, shall take effect and be in force immediately upon final passage, as provided by Government Code Sections 25123. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California .on AYES:Supervisors NOES:Supervisors ABSENT:Supervisors ., by the following vote: Alvarado Beall Gonzales Honda MeKenna_ ATT.EST: Phyllis A. Perez, Clerk Board of Supervisors APes TO FORM .AND LEGALITY: . William I. Anderson Chief Deputy County Counsel Dianne McKenna, Chairperson Board of Supervisors lu and crs\~easures.a&b~ord.a -5- This measure authorizes the enactment of a 1/2 cent retail transaction and use (sales) tax for general county purposes, with the following.mandatory restrictions: The tax must expire in nine years. If approved by the voters, this half-cent sales tax must expire, within nine years. The tax will be imposed for the period commencing April 1, 1997 and terminating March 30, 2006. The length of this tax cannot be extended without a vote - and .the approval - of the residents of Santa Clam County. ®An independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must review all expenditures. Responsibilities of the Committee: Public hearings and reports: The Committee must hold public hearings and issue reports, on at least an annual basis, to inform Santa Clam County residents how the funds ar~ being spent. The hearings must be held in full compliance with the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, with infomaation announcing the hearings well-publicized and posted in advance. ®Annual IndependentAudits: The Committee must contract with an Independent Auditor on an annual basis, to ensure tax dollars are being spent wisely. Published Results of Audits and Annual Reports: The Committee must publish the results of the Independent Audit and the Annual Report in local newspapers. In addition, copies of these documents must be made available to the public at-large. The independent Citizens Watchdog Committee must consist of private citizens, no___.~t elected officials. -2- Selection Process: To ensure that members of the Citizens Watchdog Committee are independent, the selection process will be conducted with the help of the League of Women Voters and the County Grand Jury. Term Limits: To ensure that citizens from throughout the county have an oppo~unity to serve on the independent Citizens Watchdog Committee, the at-large members will be limited to a single two-year term. Membership: The independent Citizens Watchdog Committee will consist of 17 private citizen~ from throughout Santa Clam County. Ten members will be selected at-large from throughout the county to ensure geographic balance, with two of the ten members residing in eaeh of the five Supervisorial districts. ¯District 1:Gilroy, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan I-Fill, south San Jose ¯ District 2:Downtown San Jose, east San Jose, Willow Glen - ® District 3:Milpitas, portions of northeast, east and southeast San Jose, portions of Sunnyvale ® District 4: Campbell, west San Jose, Cambrian and Santa Clara ¯District 5:Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Saratoga, Stanford and portions of Sunnyvale Seven members will be selected to reflect a balance of viewpoints across the county: -® A representative from the California Taxpayers Association o A representative from the San Jose Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce ¯ A representative from the Sierra Club ® A representative from the South Bay Labor Couneil ~ A representative from the Santa Clam Valley Manufacturing Group -3 - ¯ A representative from the Greenbelt Alliance ® A representative from the Building and Construction Trades Council The seventeen members must provid~ a balance of viewpoints, geography, age, gender and ethnieity to represent the different perspectives of taxpayers throughout Santa Clara County. Eligibility: The members must be private citizens who live or work in Santa Clam County. No elected city, county, special district, state or federal public office holder will be eligible to serve as a member of the Citizens Watchdog Committee. SECTION 3 The abbreviated statement of the measure for inclusion on the ballot pursuant to California Elections Code Section 13247 shall be as follows: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1/2 CENT SALES TAX MEASURE Shall the Board of Supervisors enact a 1/2 cent sales tax for general county purposes, with the following mandatory restrictions? ¯Th~ sales tax must expire after nine years. ¯A Citizens Watchdog Committee, selected independently with diree.tion from the County Grand Jury and the League of Women Voters, will conduct yearly audits of all sales tax expenditures.-- The~e yearly sales tax expenditure audits must be reported to the public and published in local newspapers. Yes No -4- SECTION 4 This ordinance, being an ordinance calling and relating to an election, shall take effect and be in force immediately upon final passage, as provided by Government Code Seetions 25123. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on AYES:Supervisors NOES:Supervisors ABSENT:Supervisors , by the following vote: Alvarado Beall Gonzales Honda McKenna ATTEST: Phyllis A. Perez, Clerk Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: William I. Anderson Chief Deputy County Counsel Dianne McKenna, Chairperson Board of Supervisors luander~neasures.a&b\ord.b -5- FACTS ON S[ ~’A CLARA COUNTY MEASUtLE A ~ND MEASURE B Why is traffic relief important to Santa Clara County residents and businesses? Traffic congestion is consistently identified as a major frustration facing county residents -Each Santa Clara County resident will spend 42 hours each year in traffic delays andwaste 45 gallonsof gas each year due to congestion ¯Traffic congestion results in stress, poor air quality, reduced worker productivity and poor quality of life It impacts the economic vitality of the region and the ability for companies to grow ¯Without any action, gridlock and congestion will only become worse How can Santa Clara County improve its transportation system? Private citizens, elected officials, and community groups are working together through the Citizens Coalition for Traffic Relief to provide solutions ¯Measure A and Measure B provide the specific plan and funding source to keep Santa Clara County moving toward building a comprehensive transportation net~vork ¯Successful passage of the 1984 Measure A and 55% support for the 1992 Measure A indicate voters’ support to fund transportation infrastructure improvements What is the purpose of Measure A? A half-cent sales tax to generate revenues for the county’s general fund, with the mandatory require- merits that the tax last no longer than nine years. The measure also requires that an independent Citizens Watchdog Committee conduct annual audits, hold public hearings and publish the results in local newspapers, to ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely What is the purpose of Measure B? Measure A states the voters’ intent that funds generated from Measure B, if’approved by a majority of the voters, be spent on specific transportation improvement projects to relieve traffic congestion, provide transit alternatives and create safer driving conditions for Sama Clara County residents It also lists several accountability provisions to ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely How is Measure A related to Measure B? Measure A and Measure B both must receive a majority wte in order for the transportation improvements outlined in Measure A to be implemented In other words: Measure A plus Measure B equals traffic relief What projects will Measure A fund in Santa Clara County? Link Santa Clara County to BART ha Alameda County .Widen and improve highways 880, 87, 17 & 101 ¯Synchronize the signal lights on all eight county expressways Improve key highway interchanges at 237/880, 85/101 (bit. View), 85/101 (San Jose) & 85/87 Improve safety on Highwfiys 85 and 152 (the Pacheco Pass) ¯Improve CalTrain service and facilities ,Improve transit access for the elderly and disabled ¯Extend the Light Rail system by buildingthe Tasman, Capitol and Vasona lines Provide funds for street maintenance and pothole repairs in all 15 cities and the county How much will it cost me? The average cost per resident is $32 per year How much do traffic problems cost me? Congestion costs each Bay Area resident an average of $758 per year. This figure includes time in traffic~ extra gas, & automobile wear and tear According to AAA, the cost to realign your car ai~r hitting a pothole averages $95 Is this a tax increase? , Raises the current sales tax rate one half of one percent (from 7.75% to 8.25%) Is a 2/3 vote required to pass Measures A & B? No. According to County Counsel, Measures A and B must pass by a simple majority vote, not a two-thirds vote. When will the Measure end? The measure is limited to nine years, k will go into effect on Apri/1, 1997, and end on March 31, 2006 what are the persona/benefits? Measures A and B will result in: Safer, more efficient neighborh~..~d roads, s~reets and highways Less commute time which means more time for families and civic and community involvement ¯Expanded and more convenient transit alternatives ¯Improved quality of life Why should everyone pay for improvements that might not affect them?. . We all benefit from a comprehensive transportation system -Emergency service response time, delivery of’ services and goods, air quality and neighborhood streets are aU positively affected by transportation improvements ¯Bumper-to-bumper traffic results in higher accident and injury rates Will there be any form of oversight to ensure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely? An independent Citizens Oversight Committee will ensure accountabilky Yearly audits conducted to ensure projects are being delivered, and tax dollars are being spent wisely Administrative costs limited to one half of one percent of generated revenues ¯Results of audits available to the public and published in local newspapers countywide Is a sales tax equitable? ¯ Everyone will contribute under this measure - businesses, tourkqs, government, and individuals °Basic necessities will not be taxable -- groceries, housing, medical expenses, and most utilities Will this sales tax hurt the business community in Santa Clara County? * No. If Measure A & B are successful, Santa Clara County’s sales tax rate witl match those of surrounding counties (San Mateo, Santa Cruz, San Bonito, Alameda, Contra Costa) Large employers believe transportation improvements are vital to the economic vitality and quality of’life in the region Small employers, represented by numerous Chambers of Commerce throughout the county, support these initiatives What are the economic benefits? Measures A a~ will: o Will createtnousands of jobs ¯Provide incentives for employers to stay and grow in Santa Clara County ¯Reduce time spent in traffic Why fund transportation projects with a sales tax? * A sales tax is the most reliable, equkable and easily applied tax A gas tax would require a 15 cent a gallon increase to raise revenue equivalent to a 1/2 cent sales tax °A local vehicle license surcharge would cost at least $60 per car per year What are the state and federal governments doing to help meet the transportation needs of Santa Clara County? The State Transportation Improvement Plan (ST[P) is operating with a $5 billion defick with no new funding source being proposed ¯The Federal government is reducing transportation funding by $30 billion over the next seven years °State and federal govemments usually require local mat~aing funds for projects; no such funds cun, ently exist in Santa Clam County How will these measures benefit senior citizens and the disabled? o Improves public transk vdaich many senior citizens and the disabled rely upon What happens if we don’t pass Measures A & B? °Increased traffic congestion and gridiock *Increased air pollution .Economic decline as jobs leave the county o Reduced quality of life Who supports Measures A & B? Measures.A & B are supported by a diverse coalition of business, environmental, labor health, senior and neighborhood leaders and organizations including: *Santa Clam County League of Women Voters o San Jose Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other Chambers of Commerce o American Lung Association o Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group *League of Conservation Voters .Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network *Greenbek Alliance *Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lockheed-Martin SUPPORT MATERIAL ---PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS PROJECT TITLE: Pavement Management Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To provide an annual subvention to cities and the county for maintaining local streets and the expressway system. PROJECT OBJECTIVE: To reduce local streets and expressway maintenance backlog. The estimated pavement maintenance needs of the City of San Jose total $110 million and the County Expressway maintenance backlog is $35 million. The balance of the other cities’ backlog is approximately $80 million. PROJECT FEATURES: Funding formula, maintenance of effort, ability to move Pavement Management System (PMS) funds to other capital projects ifPMS needs are met. - The County Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Moqgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale Assumes $10 m.[I/yr Based on Modified Prop. 111 Formula $3,000,000.0( $180,003.60 $200,143.86 $157,345.80 $130,911.71 $36,504.23 $135,946.77 $256,788.35 $16,363.96 $122,100.34 $338,608.16 $278,187.38 $3,943,715.16 $468,261.10 $139,723.07 $595,396.51 $10,000,000.00 ANNUAL INVESTMENT: $10 million annual subvention program. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Adopt a PMS Subvention funding formula. ¯ Develop a.certificadon process for those jurisdictions who met the Pavement Management Standards tO .use the funds for transportation capital projects. ’_ .RO,JECT FACT SHEE’ PROJECT TITLE:CURRENT STATUS: Signal Synchronization Program fQr the County of Santa Clara PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Phase 2 of the Signal Synchronization Program to include: 1.Fiberoptic Cable Backbone for the Expressway system 2.Video Detection and Surveillance systems 3.Interconnect or coordinate the adjacent signals 4.Provide specific Level of Service (LOS) improvements at specific locations. No final design or environmental work has been performed PROJECT OBJECTIVE: Implement Advanced Traffic Management Techniques on all of the Expressways and to coordinate traffic signals on cross- streets. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Perform design, obtain environmental clearance, and- construct project. SAN MATEO ALTO .OS GATOS ~ J~FACT SH EE.~. PROJECT TITLE: IntersectionLevel of Service (LOS) Improvements at: 1. Lawrence Expwy at Saratoga Ave. 2. Almaden Expwy at Coleman Ave. 3.San Tomas Expwy at Campbell Ave. 4.San Tomas Expwy at Hamilton Ave. 5.Lawrence Expwy at Prospect Ave. 6.Central Expwy at De La Cruz Blvd. 7.Central Expwy at Lafayette St. 8.Almaden Expwy at Blossom Hill Rd. 9.Capitol Expwy at Senter Rd. 10.Foothill Expwy at vadous locations PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install double left turns at various locations; install a 3rd left turn on Almaden at Blossom Hill Rd.; add a traffic lane on Central Expwy and on De La Cruz between Lafayette and Rte 101; Install long mastarm signals on Foothill Expwy at various locations. SAN MATEO CURRENT STATUS: No final design or environmental work has been performed PROJECT OBJECTIVE: Improve the Level of Service (LOS) at the project locations by making geometric improvements tothe roadway system at c~cal locations. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Perform final design, obtain environmental clearance, acquire sufficient fight-of-way, and construct projects.. LOS GATO~ ( PROJECT TITLE: Coumyw]d~ Bicycle Sysmn PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 10 cross-county bicycle commuter routes. Conceptually developed with the resistance of Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), the system will provide access along major multimodal corridors, emphasizing route con~uity aca’oss jurisdictional boundaries and links to major transit fadlities. The system may be expanded to include connections to and construction of creek trails with high commuter transportation demand. While the system will tximadly utilize existing fac’tqities, several critical gaps have been identified. F_.0mmples indud~ a trail paralleling Highway 85 through the West Valley and a connection between the Gtmdalupe River Park Trail md the Highway 87 bike patti just south of downtown San Jose. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: With the participation of city staff and BACs, final mute alignments will need to be d~ed and funding priorities identified. Individual projects will be kmpleme~ted on an annual basis. COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE SYSTEM PROJECT TITLE: Route 85 safety improvements attenuation. and noise CURRENT STATUS: No final design has been performed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To prevent future head-on collisions caused by automobiles crossing the 46 foot,dirt divider on Route 85, this project will install a "double thrie- beam" barrier in the median of the freeway. The barrier will be installed in all locations where there is not presently light rail or an existing barrier, approximately 12 miles in length. Respond to noise attenuation study currently underway by Caltrans. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): This project is a safety and noise attenuation improvement. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: To install the median safety barrier, perform the project design" and award the construction contract. Complete the noise attenuation study and perform project design. Award the construction contract. ROUTE 85 MEDIAN BARRIER (Rev. I) PROJECT TITLE: Route 880 from Route Expressway. 101 to Montague CURRENT STATUS: No final design has been performed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen from four lanes to six lanes. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): This will conform to the existing .six-lane facility on Route 880 north of Montague Expressway. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION" Perform design, obtain environmental clearance, acquire right-of-way,-and construct project. ROUTE 880 PROJECT TITLE: 2371880 Interchange Stage C, Phase I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a direct flyover connector from northbound Route 880 to westbound Route 237. Construct braided ramps along northbound Route 880 separating the Tasman Drive to northbound Route 880 on-ramp from the northbound Route 880 to eastbound Calaveras off-ramp. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Move the northbound to westbound freeway traffic from the local collector road system (Calaveras Boulevard with three signalized intersections} to a direct, high-speed, freeway connection. Separate the traffic entering and exiting northbound Route 880 to eliminate substandard weaving between Tasman Drive and Calaveras Boulevard. CURRENT STATUS: A Project Study Report defining Stages A,’ B, and C was comp!eted in 1988. The project EIR,was completed in 1990. Stages A and B are funded and currently under design by the Traffic Authority, to begin construction in 1998. 2371880 Interchange Improvements STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Initiate preliminary engineering study to fully define geometrics and right-of-way limits. Complete fina! design of project and purchase right-of-way. Construct project. Design phase will take two years. Construction phase wilt take three years. PROJECT TITLE: Route 101 North Side Improvements for the Moffett Boulevard and North Shoreline Interchange. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify the north side ramps and auxiliary lanes. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Improve direct connector movement from northbound Route 85 to northbound Route 101. Provide operational improvements to the Route 101/North Shoreline Interchange. CU RRENT STATUS: The Traffic Authority is funding preliminary design to complete a PSR and initial environ- mental studies for this project in 1996. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Complete environmental clearance and final design. ROUTE 101 NORTH SIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TITLE: Route 101 South Side Improvements for the Moffett Boulevard and North Shoreline Interchanges. CURRENT STATUS: The Traffic Authority is funding preliminary design to complete a PSR and initial environ- mental studies for this project in 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify the south side ramps and auxiliary lanes. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): These improvements .are necessary to relieve congestion and enhance the operation of these interchanges. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Complete environmental clearance and final design. ROUTE 101 SOUTH SIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TITLE: Routes 85/101 Interchange (South). CURRENT STATUS: The Route 85 project EIS/EIR was completed in 1987. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a direct connector from southbound Route 101 to northbound Route 85. Construct a direct connector from southbound Route 85 to northbound Route 101. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Operational improvements to the Routes 85/101 Interchange. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Initiate preliminary engineering study to fully define geometrics. Complete environmental reevaluation and final design of project. ROUTE 85/101 INTERCHANGE (SOUTH) PROJECT TITLE:CURRENT STATUS: Routes 85/87 Interchange.The Route 85 project EIS/EIR was completed in 1987. PROJECT DESCRIPTION" Construct two structures for the remaining freeway-to-freeway direct connectors. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Operational improvements to the Routes 85187 Interchange. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Initiate preliminary engineering study to fully define geometrics. Complete environmental reevaluation and final design of project. ROUTE 85187 INTERCHANGE PROJECT TITLE: Route 87 HOV Lanes From Route 85 to Route 280. CURRENT STATUS: A PSR was completed in 1991. Environmental clearance and final design have not been completed for this project. PROJECT DES’CRIPTION: Provide an additional lane in each direction in the median of Route 87. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Provide HOV capacity, to Route 87. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION- Complete preliminary design and environmental clearance. Complete final design and award for construction. ROUTE 87 HOV LANES PROJECT TITLE: Route 87 HOV Lanes From Route 280 to Julian Street, CURRENT STATUS: A PSR was completed in 1991. Environmental clearance and final design have not been completed for this project. PROJECT DES~3RIPTION: Provide an additional lane in each direction in the median of Route 87. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Provide HOV capaciW-to Route 87. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Complete preliminary design and environmental clearance. Complete final design and award for construction. ROUTE 87 HOV LANES PROJECT TITLE: Route 101 from Cochrane Road (in Morgan Hill) to Bernal Road. CURRENT STATUS: A.PSR was completed for the project in 199:3. Environmental clearance and final design have not been completed for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide an additional lane in each direction from Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill to Bernal Road in South San Jose. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Route 101 is an eight-lane facility from north of Bernal Road to the San Mateo County line. South of Cochrane Roadin Morgan Hill, Route 101 is a six-lane facility. This project will help relieve the existing bottleneck that occurs when the freeway converges to two lanes, STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION" Complete preliminary design and environmental clearance. Complete final design and award for construction. SANTA LIMITSI~ PROJECT TITLE:CURRENT STATUS: Route 152 Improvements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:~ This project is in the preliminary study phase, with no design activity under way. Provide safety and operational improvements on Route 152 from Llagas Creek to Route 156. Add athird lane for as much as possible of the 152 segment from,Ferguson Road to Route 156. The third lane will be used for alternating eastbound and westbound climbing and passing lanes. Also acceleration and deceleration lanes will be added where appropriate. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS)" This segment of Route 152 is a heavily t~avelled two-lane highway with many local street intersections and driveway entrances. There are limited opportunities for passing, and through traffic is slowed by entering and exiting vehi- cles. The school near Frazer Lake Road has inadequate turning capacity and warning devices. Note: ¯ The~ is a need for extensive relocation of wood utility poles along the entire length of this segment of Route 152. Q This $10 million Measure project is in addition to a $12 million Federal dem- onstration project planned in the same area. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Conduct a preliminary engineering study to determine the most cost-effective improve- ments. Identify required environmental miti- gation measures and obtain environmental clearances. Acquire right-of-way"and relocate utilities. Perform final design and construction. PROPOSED SAFETY OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ROUTE 152 PROJECT TITLE: Route 17 Improvement Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Route 17 from six to eight lanes from Camden Avenue to Hamilton Avenue. Provide an auxiliary lane at the Camden Avenue off- ramp on northbound Route 17 and modify the existing on- and off-ramps and provide for a traffic signal at the intersection with White Oaks, Provide for an additional lane in each direction of Route 17 between Lark Avenue and the Routes 85/17 Interchange. The project will include new sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge structure widenings and replacements¯ 17 on- and off-ramps for Camden Avenue at White oaks Avenue. CURRENT STATUS: Construction of the Traffic Autho~rity ramp extension project on Route 17 between the Routes 85/17 Interchange and Camden Avenue is currently under way with completion scheduled for October 1996. A Project Study Report for Route 17 between Bear Creek Road and Route 280 was completed in 1990. This project is in the preliminary study phase with no design activity under way. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Relieve the traffic congestion on Route ~i7 between Lark Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, mitigate the weaving problem associated with the Routes 85117 southbound on-ramp and Route 17 off-ramp to Lark Avenue, and improve the traffic operations at the northbound Route STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Conduct a preliminary engineering study to determine the most cost-effective improve- ments. Identify required environmental miti- gation measures and obtain environmental clearances. Acquire right-of-way .and relocate utilities. Perform final design and construction. ROUTE 17 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM LARK AVENUE TO HAMILTON AVENUE Tamien PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Increase current.CalTrain service in South County by introducing reverse commute and weekend service. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): Provide increased CalTrain service to serve residential and employment growth in South County. PROJECTED USAGE: 400-600 new dally riders. Capitol Blossom Hill Morgan Hill San Martin Gilroy CalTrain/Peninsula Corridor JPB Service Santa C/ara County Stations (Tamien to Gi/roy) CURRENT STATUS: A 1995 study, adopted by the Board of Directors, recommended certain ridership benchmarks be achieved with current South County CalTrain service before new weekday service is provided. Benchmarks are 1,600 daily riders (current 1,200) for the f’trst increment of Upgraded weekday service (provision of reverse commute service). Additional weekend service was not subject to the ridership benchmarks. STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION: Weekend service could be quickly initiated with the identification of funding. Achievement of ddership benchmarks will be a factor in the timing of additional weekday service. CalTrain Gilroy Extension Service Upgrade PROJECT TITLE: Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Purchase up to 30 low floor LRVs to serve the combined Tasman West, Tasman East and Capitol lines (from northeast San Jose to Mt. View) with LRVs that provide ADA compliance and improved service by minimizing loading times for all riders. PROJ ECT OBJECTIVE (NEED AND BENEFITS): -Low floor LRVs will provide level boarding from 14" high platforms at light rail stations on the combined Tasman and Capitol lines. The level boarding will allow the Authority to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, eliminate the need for wheelchair lifts and speed hoardings for all riders. CURRENT STATUS: Tasman West is being designed to use the current LRVs and the existing technology for the wayside wheelchair lifts. The addition of Tasman East, Capitol and Vasona will require new LRVs. When new LRVs are purehased the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires wheelchair access on new LRVs regardless of where located in a lrain. The current platform- mounted wheelchair lifts cannot meet this requirement, thus requiring level boarding. The low floor LRVs will provide level boarding on Tasman and Capitol while the existing LRVs will serve Guadalupe and Vasofm. Transfers between the two lines would oceur at First and Tasman. PROJECTED USAGE: The combined Tasman West, East and Capitol lines will serve 15,000 to 20,000 daily riders. STEPS TO iMPLEMENTATION: Specifications for low floor LRVs will be finalized and put out to bid, once a funding plan is approved for Light Rail extensions beyond Tasman.