Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 267-08TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTN:POLICY AND SERVICE COMMITTEE FRO 5’1: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT JUNE 3, 2008 CMR: 267:08 REVIEW OF REGIONAL TRANSPORATION RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and comment on the regional transportation issues discussed in this report and recommend to Council to: Refer the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center project, the Caltrain/ California High Speed Rail and the Comprehensive County Expressway Study to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and recommendations to the City Council. Continue support for the existing Council position on ramp metering as detailed in the May 29, 1996 letter from Mayor Wheeler to Cattrans and direct staff to convey the Council position to VTA and Caltrans and report back to the City Council. Direct staff to prepare a recommendation to the City Council on anticipated Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Governance structure prior to scheduled action by the VTA Board of Directors this summer. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2008, the City Council voted to refer the matter of regional transportation initiatives, projects and studies as they relate to and could have impacts for Palo Alto to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion and review. Since Council members also sit on policy advisory boards and committees for some of these transportation studies, the Policy & Services Committee was the appropriate body to develop updates, review past Council positions, determine next steps, and recommend potential policy position to the full City Council. DISCUSSION This report provides back~ound on eleven regional transportation initiatives of interest to both the Council and the community. These projects, independently and cumulatively will have implications for Palo Alto and the mid-peninsula. Specific issues discussed in this report are following: 1.2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study CMR:267:08 Page 1 of 4 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Highway 101 Auxiliary Lanes/101 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Project Highway 101 Ramp Metering Project Dumbarton Rail & HOV Buses Santa Clara County Comprehensive Expressway Study Update VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) _0.~5 California High Speed Rail (HSR) Caltrain Electrification Grand Boulevard Initiative and E1 Camino/Stanford Avenue project Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center VTA Governance There are City Council adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan or developed directly by Council for several of the above issues, while others are new issues that have not been discussed by the City Council. These projects can be classified into three general categories: (1) projects requiring City Council policy direction; (2) projects to be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for further review prior to Council action; and (3) projects to be monitored by staff and brought forward for policy direction at a later time when the projects progress to a stage that sufficient information is available for a policy decision. The attached materials present an overview and status of each of these projects. Staff will continue to monitor all of these projects, prepare more detailed reports for policy direction on individual items where appropriate, and forward issues to the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council for review and recommendations. RESOURCE IMPACT There is no City resource impact associated with these recommendations. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing stated Council policies and Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element policies, including: Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-count and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Program T-14: Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the t 993-94 design study Program T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to Downtown San Francisco. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. CMR:267:08 Page 2 of 4 Policy T-49: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. Policy T-52: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge. Policy T-53" Participate in seeking a regional solution to improved roadway connections between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge without construction of a southern connection across environmentally sensitive baylands. Policy T-54: Support efforts by Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Progam to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on area freeways. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Receiving an update on these regional transportation issues does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS A. Project Matrix B. 2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study C. Highway 101 Auxiliary Lanes/101 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Project D. Highway 101 Ramp Metering Project E. Dumbarton Rail & HOV Buses F. Santa Clara County Comprehensive Expressway Study Update G. VTA Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035 H. California High Speed Rail (HSR) I. Caltrain Electrification J. Grand Boulevard Initiative and E1 Camino/Stanford Avenue project K. Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center L. VTA Governance COURTESY COPIES Planning and Transportation Commission Chamber of Commerce PREPARED BY:¯GAgLE LII>,2ENS Transportation Manager CMR:267:08 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Plmming and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: KELLY Deputy City Managers EMSLIE CMR:267:08 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A UJ zo LU 0.--m ~o o o o ~ ~<o ~c o o.i ~o o o 0 o o Attachment B 2020 PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY Project Description: The objective of this study is to define and evaluate alternative traffic improvements on Highway 101 just north of State Route 84 (Woodside Road) to just south of Route 85 (Stevens Creek Freeway) as well as State Route 84 (Bayfront Expressway) from the Dumbarton Bridge landing to Highway 101 including streets between the Bayfront Expressway and Highway 101. The State highways within the study area all experience substantial traffic demand and poor operating conditions during the peak commute periods. The purpose of this study is to identify short, medium, and long-range roadway improvement options for addressing traffic congestion issues and address the following goals: -Facilitate access; -Enhance economic opportunities; -Optimize use of existing infrastructure; -Reduce congestion and local community impacts; and -Minimize environmental impacts on sensitive resources. A list of °~Near-Tern~" improvements (0 to 5 years) and "Long-Term" (longer than 10 years) were also developed as part of the Action Plan. The "Near-Term" projects are categorized as follows: 1.Prepare Incident Management and Traveler Information Plan for the 101 corridor. The possible designation of East Bayshore (San Antonio to University Avenue) as a reliever route to provide congestion relief for incident management on Route 101. This would also include operational improvements at intersections and installing directional signage. 2.Willow Road - Signal timing during peak travel periods. 3.Willow Road - Evaluate prohibiting left turns during peak travel periods. 4.Willow Road - Add exit/entrance right turn pockets. 5.University Avenue (East Palo Alto) - Signal timing during peak travel periods. 6.University Avenue (East Palo Alto) -Evaluate prohibiting left turns during peak travel periods. 7.University Avenue (East Palo Alto) - Add exit/entrance right turn pockets. 8.Improve 101/University Avenue Interchange (East Palo Alto) - Construct southbound direct-connect off-ramp; improve on-off connections for northbound traffic. 9.Define residential traffic management elements that mitigate high priority capital improvements. The ~Long-Tenn" projects are: 1.Highway 101 - Reconstruct Embarcadero/Oregon Expressway Interchange; including considerations for bicycle/pedestrians. 2.Highway 101 - Reconstruct San Antonio Interchange. 3.Dumbarton Bridge to Highway 101 - Grade separation at Bayfront/Willow and Bayfront/University. 4.Dumbarton Bridge to Highway 101 - Construct direct flyover connection between Bayfront/Marsh and 101 north of Marsh. 5.Willow Road- Depressed/tunnel expressway; 1 or 2 lanes in each direction. 6.University Avenue- Depressed/tunnel expressway; 1 or 2 lanes in each direction. 7.Improve 101/University Avenue Interchange (eastside). The next steps of this study are the development of an action plan to prioritize projects, identify funding strategies and to establish a schedule. Lead Agency: This project was conducted by Consultants Kimley Horn under contract with City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in partnership with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Cost: Preliminary construction cost estimates for the project alternatives range from under $1.0M to over $500M. Funding for the above improvements would come from a combination of State, Federal, Regional and Local funds. Funding for the reconstruction of the Embarcadero/Oregon Expressway and the San Antonio Road Interchange would be identified in the next phase as each project is further developed. Timeline: The Phase I of the Gateway Study will be finalized by the end of June and study results and the Action Plan will be presented by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to each of the City Councils in the study area in late summer 2O08. Existing Council Position: There is currently no Council position on this study. C/CAG will present their final report to the Council late summer 2008. Comprehensive Plan Policy: The project recommendations support and conforna to Transportation Policy T-53: Participate in seeking a regiona! solution to improved roadway connection between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge without construction of a southern connection across environmentally sensitive baylands. Issues for Palo Alto: A total of 71 project alternatives were generated for during this study. Project alternatives were grouped into five categories to determine projects for development and implementation: 1) Referral to Other Agency, 2) Project Development, 3) Phase II Study, 4) Study Later and 5) Not consistent with Goals. The two projects in Palo Alto that were identified and for further study and development (Category 3- Phase II Study) are: 1. Reconstruct Embarcadero/Oregon Expressway Interchange 2. Reconstruct San Antonio Interchange Another project in Palo Alto identified for project development (Category 2) is: The possible designation of East Bayshore (San Antonio to University Avenue) as a reliever route to provide congestion relief for incident management on Route 101. This would also include operational improvements at intersections and installing directional signage. Projects should not cause back-up and queuing of traffic onto local streets and they should reduce congestion with minimum impacts to the community. As part of the 71 projects the " 101 Southern Connection (Expressway/viaduct along edge of the Bay) skirting East Palo Alto over the Baylands and Palo Alto Golf Course" was listed as one of the potential improvements for the Dumbarton Bridge to Highway 101 connection and has been placed under Category 5) Not consistent with Goals. This is consistent with Policy T-53. Staff Recommendation: Staff will monitor this project and report to the City when the Action Plan is finalized. Links/Resou rces: None Evaluation of Potential Traffic Improvements to the Connections of US-101 and the Dumbarton Bridge DEFINITION OF PROBLEM The existing State highways within the study area all experience substantial traffic demand and poor operating conditions during the peak commute periods. STUDY 0 BJ ECTIVES The purpose of the study is to identify short, medium, and long- range roadway improvement options for addressing traffic congestion issues. The objective was to define and evaluate alternative traffic improvements in the Study area that address the following goals: ¯Facilitate access; °Enhance economic opportunities o Optimize Use of existing infrastructure ° Reduce congestion and local community impacts; and ° Minimize environmental impacts on sensitive resources The study area encompasses US-101 between SR 84 (Woodside Road) and SR 85 (Stevens Creek Freeway)junction, as well as SR 84 (Bayfront Expressway) from the Dumbarton Bridge landing to US-101 including the connecting streets STUDY ACCOMPLISHMENTS Public Input - Over 300 project ideas and suggestions were received through engagement of key stakeholders and community groups. Conceptual Solutions - 71 potential projects generated for "Universe of Alternatives" from project ideas. Assessment of Alternatives - Performed evaluation of traffic benefits, construction costs, and potential impacts utilizing a "high-medium-low" approach. Completed detailed engineering analysis for eight representa- tive project solutions. Comparison of Solutions and Findings - Compared benefits and costs be- tween alternatives and summarized results. Categorization of Alternatives - Project alternatives were grouped into different categories to determine projects for development and imple- mentation. Next Steps - Development of an action plan to prioritize projects, identify funding strategies, and establish schedule. Project Sponsors: May 2008 Attachment C HIGHWAY 101 AUXILIARY LANES/101 HOT LANES PROJECT Project Description: This project will construct auxiliary lanes in each direction of a 3.2 mile segment of Route 101 between Route 85 in Mountain View and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto. The purpose of this project is to relieve existing and future traffic congestion and to improve safety along the U.S. 101 corridor in Santa Clara County by eliminating bottlenecks ~vhile providing additional capacity for vehicles to merge. The proposed improvements include: Construct auxiliary lanes between on-ramps and off-ramps; Widen and modify on-ramps and off-ramps at each interchange to improve efficiency of the auxiliary lanes; Widen the freeway to a 10-lane cross section between interchanges; Improve traffic operations on the freeway by providing more room for traffic entering and exiting the freeway at each interchange; Allow traffic traveling from one interchange to the next interchange to use the freeway without impacting the main through lanes. High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes were originally proposed as part of the 101 Auxiliary Lanes project, but because of funding constraints and capacity issues, the HOT Lanes project will now be implemented on Route 85. The 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project would be designed in such a way that the HOT lanes could be implemented at a later time, without any major reconstruction. Lead Agency: VTA is the lead agency for this project. Caltrans will be the lead agency for the environmental clearance. Cost: $102 Million: $84.9 million in Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds $17.3 million in VTA Local Program Reserve funds Timeline: Project Report/Environmental Document Approval: Summer 2009 Design Completion: Winter 2011 Construction begins: Summer 2011 Construction ends: Summer 2014 Existing Council Position: There is currently no Council position on this project. Project supports Transportation Policy T-52. Comprehensive Plan Policy: This project supports and conforms to Policy T-52: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge. Issues for Palo Alto: Auxiliary are not being proposed on Northbound Route 101, from San Antonio Road to Oregon Expressway; acceleration/deceleration lanes will be placed instead. The reason for this is because traffic volumes do not warrant auxiliary lanes and the mergin#weaving that would occur, due to the tong length in between these two exits, would be eliminated. Also, no auxiliary lanes would be placed between San Antonio Road and Rengstorff because there is currently no southbound on-ramp at San Antonio Road to originate this lane. Some exchange of right-of-way between the City and State maybe necessary along the frontage roads. Right-of-way may be needed along the ditch running between the frontage road and the freeway. No impacts to East and West Bayshore frontage roads are expected. More information will be obtained as the project moves forward. The freeway will be widened both in the north and southbound directions. Consultant for this project will coordinate with the responsible utility companies to identify ownership and relocation needs. Consultant for this project is also evaluating the bridge widening and its effect on the creek crossing capacity at both Matadero and Adobe Creek and will provide additional information as the project is further defined in the environmental phase. Staff Recommendation: Staff will monitor and report back to Council when the draft environmental report is released. Links/Resources: None 1 O1 Auxiliary Lanes Project Overview The project wvill construct auxilim.w lanes in each direction of a 3.2-mile segment of U.S. 101 between Route 85 in Mountain View and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto. Obiective The purpose of this project is to relieve existing and future traffic congestion along U.S. 101 between Route 85 in Mountaha View and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, and to improve safer), along the U.S. 101 corridor in Santa Clara County by eliminating bottlenecks while providing additional capaciV for vehicles to merge. Proiect Features Maintenance of Traffic Flow Operations The proposed improvements would: ¯Construct auxiliary lanes between on-ramps and off-ramps; ¯Widen and modify on-ramps and off-ramps at each interchange to improve efficiency of the auxiliaU lanes; ¯Widen the freeway to a t0-1ane cross section between interchanges; ¯Improve traffic operations on the freeway by providing more room for traffic entering and exiting the freeway at each interchange; .Allow traffic traveling fl-om one interchange to the next interchange to use the freeway without hnpacting the main through lanes. For the safeb’ of the public and construction workers, traffic control measures (such as temporaU lane closures and detours) wilt be used as needed. Contractors will be required to make eveo’ effort to maintain access and minimize disruptions. The public will be notified before traffic control measures are implemented. Upon completion, Caltrans will operate and maintain the highway improvements. Capital Cost/ Project Funding $102 million: $84.9 million in Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) Funds, $17.3 million in VTA Local Program Reserve Funds. Project Schedule How to ReachUs Construction begins: Summer 2011 Construction completes: Summer 2014 For more information on the U.S. 10l Auxilia~ Lanes Project, pIe~e contact VTA Community Outreach (408) 321-7575, TDD for the hearing impaired (408) 321-2330. You may also visit us on the web at ww~:vta.org, or email us at community, outv’each@vta, org. For information reg~ding existing light rail and bus transit service, please contact VTA Customer Service (408) 321-2300, TDD for the hearing impaired (408) 321-2330. USI01AUX t .T29!07 Polo Alfo N Mounlain View U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes Sunny’vole Attachment D SOUTHBOUND HIGHWAY 101 RAMP METERING PROJECT Projeet Description: Activation of ramp metering on the southbound ramps on Highway 101 from Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto to De La Cruz Blvd. in San Jose. The ramps to be metered in Palo Alto include the Oregon and Embarcadero southbound on-ramps. Lead Agency: VTA with Caltrans support Cost: MTC made $2.051 million available to VTA to implement ramp meeting on 3 freeways including Highway 101. The other two corridors were southbound State Route 87 and Southbound State Rote 85. Timeline: Tentative schedule is to complete ramp metering plans in the fall, implement ramp metering by the end of the year and complete evaluation in early 2009. Existing Council Position: The City Council last considered the issue of ramp metering in Apri! 1996, A copy of a le~er frQm Mayor Wh~!er to Caltr~s ~ated May 29, !~_96 is attached. The Council endorsed the position that the ramp metering lights would not be turned on until a formal agreement between Caltrans and the local agencies governing the operational aspects of ramp metering was reviewed and approved by the City. Comprehensive Plan Policy: Transportation Policy T-54: Support efforts by Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow- on area freeways. Issues for Palo Alto: In 1996, a number of issues associated with ramp metering were raised by Palo Alto including the absence of ramp metering in San Mateo County, the impact on local streets, and the need for establishment of a formal process of monitoring and resolving problems. Without ramp metering upstream in San Marco County, traffic would be free flowing before reaching Palo Alto. This issue has been resolved as ramp metering of the southbound ramps in San Mateo County between Highway 92 and University Avenue has now- been implemented. VTA and Caltrans staff have included in their work scope conducting before studies on selected local streets to establish base lines for potential impacts of traffic diversion from the freeway. The parallel routes identified include Middlefield, Alma and Louis Road. A second operational concern is the length of the queues created on the on-ramps and possible spill back onto Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway. Ramp metering can be timed to release cars at intervals between 4 seconds (900 vehicles per lane per hour) and 15 seconds. In the earlier dialogues with Caltrans, City staff questioned whether metering could be reduced to less than 4 seconds or if two vehicles could be released per green light per lane, or if the HOV on-ramp lane could be metered at a faster rate than non-HOV lane if queues or traffic diversion to parallel routes occur. The need for closed circuit television cameras at the head of the ramps was also identified. CCTV is not included in this project but is planned by Caltrans as a separate project. The City advocated for the establishment of a formal agreement between Caltrans and the local agencies related to the ramp metering which would detail the responsibilities and process for addressing operational concerns in the event the ramp metering had impacts on local streets. Caltrans and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as created for the implementation of ramp metering in San Mateo County. VTA staffhave indicated that this is not contemplated by VTA and that at present no VTA Board action is anticipated before the ramp metering is turned on. Staff Recommendation: staff recommends the Council reaffirm its stated position to VTA and Caltrans. Staff will return to Council with a full report when the ramp metering plan is defined later this year. Links/Resources: w-ww.vta.org May 29, 1996 O.~ce of tlzc Mayor a~ zd Cih.l Com zcit Paul Hensley District Division Chief Department of Transportation Caltrans - Districl 4 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Dear Mr. Hensley: First, would like to express our sincere appreciation to you for attending our. Council meeting on April t5, 1996 and participating in the discussion regarding ramp metering. We found the discussion to be helpful and informative, and we particularly appreciated the very straightforward and constructive manner in which you responded to the questions and concerns. At your suggestion we are following UP with this letter which reflects our understandng of Caltrans’ position on several issues lhat are of particular interest and concern to the City of PaloA!to. Our understanding is as follows: Caltrans intends to proceed with the installation (construction) of the equipmen~ that is needed for ramp metering later this year. However, the melering lights themselves will not be turned on (operations) until such time that there, is an approved written agreemen~ to do.so. Caltrans intends to establish a process that will include representalives from the various jurisdictions along Roule 101, as well as the Congestion Managemenl Agency, to work through the necessary steps to develop a formal agreement for the operational aspects of ramp metering along the Route 101 Corridor. The approach followed in the "Agreement for Cooperative Management of the 1-880 Corridor" (i.e. CMA Policy body, SIeering CommiI~ee and Technical Working Group) may be a useful model for the Route 101 Corridor. The Palo Alto City Council willhave an opporlunity to formally review any such agreemenl before i~ is approved and/or the melering lighIs are turned on. Once an agreement has been established for operation of ramp metering, Caltrans will monitor the effects on local streets and will respond to specific problems that arise. Catirans in~ends to have a regional or sub-regiona! entily, such as the CMAI serve as the body for resolution of disputes, ra~her than Caltrans itself. P.O. ~ox 10250 Pa]o ,4]to, CA 94~3 4! 5.329.24/-7 4 ! 5. 328. ~31 Mr. Paul Hensley May 29, 1996 Page 2 5.Recognizing that the congeslion corridor along Route 101 does not arbitrarily end at the County line, Callrans wilt evaluate the need for ramp melering in San Mateo County. This wil! delermine the northern end of the congestion corridor and include appropriate sections of Route 101, north of the Santa Clara County line into the operation agreement before the metering lights are turned.on. The interchanges at University, Willow and Marsh are the most obvious candidates. Call:tans will include evaluation and consideration of the air quality effects of ramp metering on Palo Allo residenIial areas that are localed in proximily to the metered ramps, as well as the effect on University Avenue traffic, if ramp metering is not extended inlo San Mateo Counly. After you have had a chance to review these items, we would appreciate a response from you indicating your concurrence wilh our understanding, or providing furlher clarification. Finally, you offered to provided some refererice information that demonstrates the orerail benefits of ramp melering here in the Bay Area and elsewhere. We would appreciate any such information that would add to our understanding of ramp metering. Again, thank you. We look forward to working with Caltrans in a positive and participatory manner; and we feel that the discussion we recently had at the Oouncil meeting, along with this letter, are important steps toward that end. Sincerely, LAN1E WHEELER Mayor cc: City Council MOUNTAINVIEW Project Limits SUNNYVALE CUPERT1N( CAMPBEL SAN JOSE Location Map SB US 101 Ramp Metering Implementation - Metering Locations Direction & Route: "0n-Ramp Location Embarcadero Road Embarcadero Road Oregon Expressway Rengstroff Avenue Old Middlefield Way Shoreline Boulevard Moffett Boulevard Ellis Street SR 237 Mathilda Avenue Mathilda Avenue Fair Oaks Avenue Fair Oaks Avenue Lawrence Expressway Lawrence Expressway Great America Parkway Great America Parkway Montague Expressway Montague Expressway De La Cruz Boulevard De La Cruz Boulevard Type of Ramp Loop Diagonal CD-Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Collector Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Loop Diagonal Loop Diagonal Loop Diagonal Loop Diagonal Loop Diagonal Loop Diagonal Southbound US 101 AM Peak Period** 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9 PM Peak Period 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 *’Indicates that the need for a cursory check of traffic conditions to determine if ramp metering plans need to be developed. 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 Attachment E DUMBARTON RAIL & HOV BUSES Project Description: The Dumbarton Rail Corridor is located in the southern section of the Bay Area Regional Rail network. This project will extend rail service between Redwood City and Union City by reconstructing the existing rail corridor next to the Dumbarton Bridge (State Route 84). The corridor is owned by the San Mateo County Transit District and the Union Pacific railroad. The purpose of this project is to link the East Bay and the West Bay by extending rail service across southern San Francisco Bay. The extension will connect existing public transportation services such as BART, Altamont Commuter express, Capital Corridor and Caltrain and regional bus service. This connection would help reduce highway congestion, meet future transportation needs and improve air quality. The proposed Dumbarton train service will consist of six trains across the bridge during the morning commute, to load passengers at the Union City Intermodal Station and operate westbound across the bay to the Redwood Junction, and six trains would return during the evening commute. Morning trains will originate at the Union City Intermodal Station, cross the bay, and then three trains will travel north to San Francisco and three will travel south to San Jose along the Caltrain track with stops at Caltrain stations. In the evening, all trains will reverse the same pattern and travel back to Union City. In addition, three new passenger rail stations in Menlo Park/East Palo Alto, Newark, Union City and a new layover facility in the East Bay, will be constructed. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an evaluation of a Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative that maximizes the efficiency of the present transportation system. The Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project draft EIR/EIS will also include an evaluation of a TSM bus alternative in addition to the total rail corridor alternative. Previous alternatives that were looked at included a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative which used the rail corridor as dedicated right-of-way for the express bus service. This alternative, even though resulted in more competitive travel times and higher ridership, was cost prohibitive because of the dedicated right-of-way needed for the system. The Raid Bus TSM alternative was then developed and is now being considered as a viable alternative in the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The TSM Bus Alternative includes four Rapid Bus service routes operating over the existing Dumbarton auto bridge, serving major origins and destinations along the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. Some capital improvements will be needed, related to signal priority and curbside improvements at select stops, as well as operational and maintenance of the larger bus fleet. It is assumed that the fleet will be similar to the Dumbarton Express Coach that is in operation today. Lead Agency: The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board is the lead agency for the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), design, construction and operation of the Dumbarton Rail. Cost: $595 Million - Funding for this project is from the following agencies: -Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) -San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) -Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) -Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) -Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) Timeline: EIPUEIS will be released in the Fall 2008. Start of service - by 2012 Existing Council Position: City Council has not taken a specific position on this project. Comprehensive Plan Policy: The project recommendations support and conform to Policy T-52: Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge. Issues for Palo Alto: The purpose of the project is to enhance transit connectivity between the east and west sides of the Bay. Currently, many of the commuters are driving across the Dumbarton State Highway Bridge in cars or buses, but when the bridge gets gridlocked in the future, the Dumbarton Rail will be there to provide a solution to the congestion on the highway bridge. In particular, Palo Alto students and employees that live in the East Bay would use Dumbarton as a means to get to school and work in the morning and return home in the evening. Also, the Dumbarton project will help business owners because it will provide a reliable commute so their employees will be able to report to work on time and provides an expanded labor pool. The existing Caltrain infrastructure can accommodate the extra Dumbarton train service (12 trains a day). Minor capital improvements are proposed for operational integration and flexibility only. The Dumbarton project assumes that Electrification will happen on the mainline corridor and Dumbarton trains will run "under the wire" to San Francisco and San Jose. The Dumbarton Rail Corridor will not be electrified. The proposed Rapid Bus alternative would serve a limited number of stops including BART stations in the Easy Bay and a few major employment destinations in the Peninsula. There will be four routes that would connect the southern Alameda County and southern San Mateo and northern Santa Clara Counties, with a transfer point provided on both sides of the Bay. The Green Route is proposed to serve the East Bay between the Hayward BART Station to the West Bay at the Menlo Park and Redwood City Caltrain stations, along with stops at Electronic Arts and Oracle Headquarters. The Blue Route is proposed to have stops at a few Fremont locations in addition to stops at Menlo Park, Google and Microsoft Headquarters and the NASA Ames Research Center. The Yellow Route was developed by modifying the existing Dumbarton Express bus route. It will operate between the Union City BART station and Stanford Industrial Park, with fewer stops than the Dumbarton Express in order to provide faster travel times. The proposed West Bay stops are at the Menlo Park Station, Menlo Park VA Hospital, Page Mill Road/El Camino Real Park-n- Ride, Stanford Research Park and the Stanford VA Hospital. The Red Route is a modified version of the existing AC Transit Route with more frequent service. It would operate between the Fremont BART Station and Stanford University. The proposed East Bay stops are at the Fremont BART and Newark Stations to the West Bay at the Menlo Park Station and Stanford University. Staff Recommendation: Staff will monitor project and report back to Council. Links/Resources: http :i/ww-w.b a ,vrailalliance.or~idumbarton rail bttp :/iw~,~.sn~cta.comiDumba~-ton Rail/information.asp I=.Z Attachment F SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE EXPRESSWAY STUDY UPDATE Project Description: The County of Santa Clara initiated a Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study in 2001 to provide a long-term plan for the improvement and maintenance of the County Expressway System. The Implementation Plan was completed in August 2003 and provides a basis for and guides the investment of money and other resources the County Expressway System. Study objectives were defined as follows: Identify a plan for improvement and maintenance of the County’s expressways that is supported by local officials and communities. Identify funding needs and suggest appropriate sources. Recommend priorities and implementation strategies. Projects in the study were identified and categorized using the following criteria: Tier 1A: Projects in this category is considered the highest priority and will be submitted for VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035 as part of the constrained funding plan. Projects in this category would include at-gade operational improvements. o Tier 1B: Projects in this category are also submitted for VTP 2035 as part of the unconstrained plan so that they will be eligible for regional funds should additional funds become available. Projects would include grade separations/interchange projects. 3.Tier 1C: Projects in this category would include improvements (both at-gade and ~ade separation/interchange projects) needed to mitigate the projected 2025 intersections. Tier 2: Projects in this category are not considered priorities but are based on project types and will be implemented should funding become available. Projects in this category would include other expressway capacity improvements projects that can further facilitate traffic flow. 5.Tier 3: Projects in this category are not considered priorities but are based on project types and will be implemented should funding become available. Lead Agency: Santa Clara County is taking the lead in the study and implementation of the projects developed in the study. Cost: Funding for Tier 1A and 1B would come from VTP 2035, Federal (earmark) funds, Proposition 1B, and City Development Impact Fees. All other Tiers are currently unfunded. Cost of proposed projects in Palo Alto: ¯Highway 280/PageMill Interchange modification - $6.6 Million ¯The Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study - $.3 Million ~Add a second southbound right turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill - $5.0 Million Alma Bridge reconstruction - $130 Million ~ Reconfigure US/101 Oregon Expressway/Embarcadero Road Interchange - $50 Million The Oregon Expressway Improvement Project- $3.5 Million Timeline: It is assumed that all Tier 1A and half of 1B projects would be funded for implementation by the year 2015. Existing Council Position: Council previously approved an action on August 11, 2003 (CMR:376:03) endorsing key aspects of the proposed County Expressway System improvements for Palo Alto’s Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. Comprehensive Plan Policy: This project recommendations support and conform to Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Atto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Issues for Palo Alto: Projects under Oregon-Page Mill Expressway are as follows: Tier 1A: Highway 280/PageMill Interchange modification: This project proposes to remove the existing southbound loop on-ramp and construct a new southbound diagonal on-ramp with si~aal operations. It will also signalize the northbound off-ramp intersection and provide proper channelization for pedestrians and bicycles. The Alma Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study: This study will involve coordination with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the Peninsula Joint Powers Board (JPB) due to the Caltrain tracks. Tier 3: Add a second southbound right turn lane from Junipero Serra to Page Mill and extend the southbound right turn lane half way to Stanford intersection. Maintain through bike lane, no free right turn lane; avoid inadvertently inducing traffic shift onto Stanford Avenue. (The County has placed this project on hold due to the request from the City, in order for the improvements and benefit of the Sand Hill Road improvements and programs, to encourage alternate modes of Transportation, on the LOS at this location can be evaluated. Should a future evaluation indicate improvements are still needed, this project could be moved into Tier 1A with City’s concurrence) Alma Bridge reconstruction based on results of Tier 1A feasibility study. Reconfigure US/101 Oregon Expressway/Embarcadero Road Interchange to resolve operational problems due to ramp queues backing up on Oregon Expressway. As part of the Initial Study in 2003, the Oregon Expressway Improvements Project was identified and placed under Tier 1A. Funding for this project has become available and this project has been moved to the Implementation phase and is no longer on the Tier 1A list. The Oregon Corridor Improvements Project will include: Replace signal poles and optimize timing plan avoiding impacts on safety at unsignalized intersections. Construct pedestrian ramps with relocation of traffic signal poles at signalized intersections. o Study operational changes at the unsignalized intersections at Waverly, Ross, and Indian that avoid increasing traffic impacts on cross and parallel streets; enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety and maintain vehicle safety. Conduct feasibility study of adding a turn lane at Middlefield Road and converting it to an 8-phase signal operation to enhance efficiency and safety without taking any right of ~vay. The first community meeting for the Oregon Expressway Improvements project was held on April 3, 2008. Staff from the County introduced the project to the surrounding residents and gathered comments from the neighborhood in order to better define the project needs. A 2nd meeting is scheduled for June 9, 2008, to review the proposed plans and to collect public input on the alternatives in order to refine the project. A public hearing is scheduled for Fall/Winter 2008 to review the recommended alternatives. Desi~a and construction is targeted to begin in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Staff Recommendation: Staff will continue to monitor and report back to Council when the updated Comprehensive Expressway Study is finalized. Links/Resources: w\~, w.ore~onexpresswa v.info 39N3~MV’l 0 Attachment G VTA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN (VTP) 2035 Project Description: Every 5 years, VTA updates its 25-year long-range transportation Valley Transportation Plan (VTP). The plan provides the framework for short term strategic decisions and a long term vision. The VTP 2035 vision is being deve!oped. The last plan, VTP 2030, was adopted by the VTA Board of Directors in February 2005. The update for the VTP is underway and generally tracks in advance of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update which is undertaken by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The VTP 2035 plan will include six main program areas: transit, highways, expressways, local streets and roads, pavement maintenance, and Local enhancements (e.g., soundwalls, bicycle, livable communities, ITS, and graffiti/landscaping). The maj or transit projects include BART to San Jose, Caltrain and Light Rail projects. Concurrently, VTA is investigating four Portfolio plans to update the Measure A revenue and expenditure plan: No new- revenue VTP 2035 revenues New ½-cent sales tax New ¼-cent sales tax Lead Agency: Santa Clara Valley Transportation AuthoriW (VTA) Cost/Funding: VTA estimates the Countywide transportation-related capital and maintenance needs over the next 25 years to be $28.7 billion. Since there are more projects submitted than there is funding available, VTA must place projects in groups that can be funded with the expected revenues over the life of the plan (financially constrained) and those which must wait for additional, yet to be obtained funds (financially un-constrained). VTA has used a financial analysis model to examine the existing Measure A revenue and expenditure plan adopted by the VTA Board in June 2006. This analysis concludes that even the proposed new ¼ cent sales tax is insufficient to produce a solvent financial plan with the projected project schedules as adopted by the Board in 2006. To that end, VTA staff have proposed policy guidelines for the new Measure A revenue and expenditure plan, among which are to maintain financial integrity of the organization; increase transit usage, stren~hen complimentary partnerships, take advantage of leveraged and new funding sources, and achieve a balanced transportation plan. (see attachment). Timeline: VTA anticipates completing the draft plan in late summer, public review during the fall, and adoption in December 2008. Existing Council Position: Council has not taken a position on VTP 2035, but in 2005 the City Council opposed the proposed new ½ cent count sales tax and Long Term Capital Investment Plan. Council opposed funding for BART, until a financially sustainable plan was developed and further recommended funding for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Measure A funding be accelerated from 2030 to 2015.(see attached letter dated 4/19/2005 from Mayor Burch to VTA Chair Pirzynski). Comprehensive Plan Policy: Policy T-49, Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. Issues for Palo Alto: A key issue for Palo Alto will be to monitor that the VTP 2035 Plan includes capital and operating funding for projects of regional and local benefit to the north county that encourage and support regional and community transit, multimodal transportation, projects that support transit-oriented developments, and reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases. In particular interest to Palo Alto are Caltrain capital and service upgrades, Dumbarton Rail, the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center, regional and community bus projects. Ridership is up 11% on the Caltrain line, the community bus project is being initiated in Palo Alto this summer. Continued progress is being achieved in the Intermodal Transit Center project and Dumbarton Rail, as described separately in this report. Also, as part of the VTP 2035 development process, cities and County of Santa Clara submitted projects to VTA that they would like to see implemented within the timeframe of the plan. Staff submitted a total of 10 projects for consideration, including three existing VTP 2030 projects and seven new projects: Existing Projects California Avenue Caltrain Pedestrian!Bicycle Undercrossing Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Palo Alto Smart Residential Arterials Project New Projects Palo Alto Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrades Downtown Palo Alto Traffic Signals Upgrades Palo Alto Citywide Traffic Signals CCTV and emergency vehicle preemption South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian!bicycle grade separation Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian!bicycle Grade Separation E1 Camino Real Streetscape Improvements Project California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends monitoring this project and providing a report to Council at the appropriate time. Links/Resources: http://www.vta.org/studies/vtp2035/index.htm1 Attachment A: Proposed Policy Guidance for .Measure A Re,,enue and Expenditure Plan Maintain Financia! Inte~,d-ity of Organization ¯Protect current transit services as a priority ¯Bond at appropriate debt service coverage levels ¯Develop sound ~tS_nanciat capital aald operating projectpl,-ms Increase Transit Usage ~Provide transit services competitive to auto travel times ¯Respond to travel market needs o Increase Transit Ridership Achieve Envirolvmental Ja~provements *Re&me vehicle-~rfiles-traveled *Reduce N’eenhouse enfissions .Improve air quality Support Trmlsit-Oriented Land Use Focus capital-intensive investments on "cores, corridors, and station are~" ~Advm~ce VTA Joint Development Pro~am Strengthen Complimentary Pmmerships o Identi~" oppommities for sy~ergy between project invest,.nents Identify and solidify partnership conm~itments Take Advantage of Leveraged m~d New Ftmd Sources ~Advance projects to ready state *Advocate ibr outside fi~nd sources and matched rinds required to advance projects *Investigate public-private partnerships Model Vmious Financial Conditions Investigate "Portfolio of Plans" inclnding "NO new reventle ~VTP_0~ revenues "~-ceN sales tax .~A-cent sales tax Achieve a Balm~ced Trmlsportation Plm~ *Provicle appropriate levels of ser~-ice to meet the needs within the county *Provide a portfolio of transportation modaI solutions Implement the Intent of Measure A Include only those projects in the Plan that have been approved by the voters in the llleflslLre. Page 4 of 4 City ot Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council April 19, 2005 Mr. Joe Pirzynski, Chairperson Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Re: VTA Long-Term Transit Capital Investment Plan Dear Mr. Pirzynski: On March 21, 2005, the City Council discussed the Draft VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program and the proposed one-half cent transportation sales tax to fund the investment program. The Council also reviewed and discussed SB 680, the Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Bill. The Council voted by unanimous action to take the following positions: 1.The City Council opposes the proposed new 1/2-cent County sales tax intended to fund the proposed Valley Transportation Authority Long-Term Capital Investment Program. 2.The City Council endorses the following positions on the Capital Investment Plan: a)Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Measure A funding should commence in the year 2015, not 2030 as proposed in the proposed VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program. b)Funding for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (BART Extension) Project should be removed from the proposed VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program until a cost effective, feasible, and financially sustainable alternative to the current BART Extension project is developed. Sufficient funding should be developed and be provided in the proposed VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program for cost-effective, feasible, and financially sustainable alternative to the current BART Extension project. ~O. Box 10250 Pa!oAlto, CA94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631fax Mr. Joe Pirzynski April Page 2 of 2 c)VTA Board of Directors should reissue a revised draft VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program reflecting the above changes and then consider a suitable sales tax measure proposal sufficient to fund its implementation. At the same meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to endorse SB 680, the Santa Clara County Traffic Relief Bill. A Resolution of support for SB 680 is enclosed. Palo Alto welcomes the opportunity to continue the dialogue about how to structure a cost-effective, long-term financial program that addresses all countywide transit needs equitably. The City looks forward to participating in such discussions in the near future. Sincerely, JIM BURCH Mayor Enclosure (Resolution of Support for SB 680) City Council Peter Cipolla, VTA General Manager Carolyn Gonot, VTA Chief Development Officer Chris Augenstein, VTA Transportation Planning Manager Attachment H CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL Project Description: The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is proposing a high speed train system to provide a safe and reliable mode of travel that links major statewide metropolitan areas in the state. The CHSRA in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has released the draft program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) that further examines the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley. The proposed system stretches from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento in the north, with service to the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. With bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the express travel time from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles is just under 2 ½ hours. Intercity travelers (trips between metropolitan regions) along with longer- distance commuters would enjoy the benefits of a system designed to connect with existing rail, air and highway systems. A branch of the system would separate and run from the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. The High Speed Rail (HSR) system is planned to access San Jose as well as San Francisco, with stops in between cities through two alternatives through the Pacheco Pass near Highway 152 and the Altamont Pass near 1-580 in the East Bay. The program EI1R~/EIS does not analyze site-specific impacts of potential alignments or stations, therefore site-specific impacts and mitigation measures are not discussed. The program EIR!EIS discusses implications of corridor/aligTLrnent selection, general station locations, and general system-wide impacts and describes mitigation strategies that are tailored to address the types of impacts anticipated as a result of construction of the HSR. In the future, a monitoring plan will be developed as part of each project-level analysis that includes more specific timing for mitigation measures. Lead Agency: The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is the state entity responsible for planning, constructing and operating the high-speed train system. The CHSRA has a nine-member policy board (five appointed by the governor, two appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and two by the speaker of the Assembly) and a small core staff. All environmental, planning and engineering work is perfo~Tned by private firnas under contract with the Authority. Cost: Capital Costs for the HSR Alternatives range from $6.0 billion for the Altamont Pass Alternative and $37.5 million for the Pacheco Pass Alternative terminating at San Jose and $74.3 million for the Pacheco Pass Alternative serving San Francisco and Oakland with a new transbay tube. The cost to operate and maintain the HSR system varies from $t.07 to $1.12 billion per year for the Altamont Pass alternative to an additional $80 million per year for the Pacheco Pass Alternative. Timeline: In October 2007, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) voted on the High Speed Rail alignment, selecting Pacheco Pass as the preferred alignment for northern to southern California service and also recommended a hybrid solution that the Altamont Pass High Speed Train should also eventually be built and connected to a BART extension in Livermore from the Central Valley. The State Legislature has put on the November 2008 ballot a bond measure for $9.95 billion which will require only a simple majority vote to pass. Of the total bond amount $950 million goes to augmenting regional commuter rail feeding the HSR and the $9 bi!lon remaining would go to the HSR project. If the High Speed Train bond passes next fall then it would take three to five years of additional planning and EIR work before any construction could begin. This would give cities with scheduled stops or optional stops time to plan and understand what the station requirements including Transit Oriented Development in the area, would be by working ~vith CHSR staff and Board. Existing Council Position: In September 2003, the Council adopted the Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan which included support California High Speed Rail as a medium priority. Comprehensive Plan Policy: This project recommendation supports and conforms to Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Issues for Palo Alto: The alignment option between San Jose and San Francisco along the peninsula would utilize the Caltrain rail right of way, and share tracks with express Caltrain commuter rail services. It is assumed to have 4-tracks, with the two middle tracks being shared by Caltrain and HSR. The system would consist of steel train tracks on a track bed placed at either ~ade level, on an aerial structure, in a tunnel, or in a trench. The trains would be powered by electrical power supplied to the train from an overhead system that would receive power from the power distribution system. HSR trains could operate at speeds of 100-125 mph along the peninsula providing 30-minute express travel times between San Francisco and San Jose. Environmental impacts would be minimized since this alignrnent utilizes the existing Caltrain right of way. This aligaament would increase connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula and SFO. The HSR system would provide a safer, more reliable, energy efficient inter-city mode along the San Francisco Peninsula while improving the safety, reliability and performance of the regional commuter service. The HSR would greatly increase the capacity for inter-city, commuter travel and reduce automobile traffic. The HSR is projected to carry as many as 117 million passengers annually by the year 2030. The projected travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles would be approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. The proposed mid- peninsula station sites are Redwood City and Palo Alto. One of these cities would be selected during the final EIa/EIS phase. Street crossings at all locations would be grade-separated. The EIR/EIS does not specify whether the tracks would be elevated or the roads be lowered through out Palo Alto, and it is important to know the details of this proposal before offering support for this project. With Palo Alto being one of the proposed cities for a HSR station stop, the following issues are of concern: The right of way impacts and construction impacts of either lowering or raising of the street and/or tracks. Neighborhood impacts from the construction and grade separation of all tracks that run through the city. Impacts to local traffic circulation throughout the city. Potential impacts on aesthetics, noise, trees and safety due to electrification and freight operation on the tracks. Does Palo Alto want to advocate being the preferred mid-peninsula stop? Need to accommodate for the higher parking demand (parking structure) if Palo Alto is chosen as the mid-peninsula station stop. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends referral to Planning and Transportation Commission. Links/Resources: http:!/www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov! / ! ! ! ! ! ! // ! !t!/1/ !!!!! Attachment I CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION Project Description: The proposed project is the electrification of the entire Caltrain line from the current northern terminus at Fourth and King Street in the City of San Francisco to the southern terminus at the Gilroy station in downtown Gilroy. The primary purposes of the Caltrain Electrification Program are to improve train performance, reduce noise, improve regional air quality and modernize Caltrain. Electrification of the Caltrain line would provide faster acceleration, braking and boarding which means that service can be provided to more stations with shorter trip times. By shortening the time it takes to go from the San Jose station to San Francisco, Caltrain will be able to squeeze more runs into an 8-hour work day while using the same number of crews and vehicles. This allows Caltrain to offer more frequent service at a reduced cost. This will also allow Caltrain to increase the number of stops that the local trains make and to restore service to some station stops that had been previously eliminated to control costs. Electrification would also reduce noise and air pollution. The Electrification project would provide for the conversion from diesel-hauled to electric-hauled trains and would require the installation of overhead contact system for distribution of electrical power to the electric rolling stock. The overhead contact system (OCS) would provide power to the electrical vehicles. This power supply and distribution system and voltage are compatible with the requirements of high-speed rail and will accommodate future development of high-speed rail in the Caltrain corridor without any significant overhaul of the electrification system. The use of electric locomotives or electric multiple unit (EMU) trains will also be purchased and brought into revenue as part of this project. Lead Agency: The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) is the lead agency for the environmental, design and construction of this project. Cost: $858.6 Million - Funding for this project is from county-based local sources, including sales taxes; Regional and State transportation Improvement and Congestion Management - Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; regional discretionary sources, including Interregional Transportation Improvement Program; and State Air Resources Board/Assemble Bill 434 funds. Timeline: Environmental for this project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008. Desig-n and construction to be completed by 2014. Existing Council Position: City Council endorsed Caltrain Electrification as a high priority in the Palo Alto Transportation Strategic Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy: This project supports and conforms to Policy T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to Downtown San Francisco. Issues for Palo Alto: The addition of the Overhead Contact System poles and wires would require trimming of trees in the existing rail corridor which could result in changes that would increase visual clutter in some locations and be perceived as negative by some residents and business occupants, depending on their distance to the Caltrain right of way. These changes would not introduce visual elements that are out of character with existing land uses. Noise emanating fiom the passage of electrified trains is measurably less when compared with diesel operations. Train whistles will continue to be sounded at grade crossings, consistent with the Public Utilities Commission safety regulations. Electrified locomotives are expected to produce reductions in corridor air pollution emissions when compared with diesel locomotives. An electrified Caltrain system would better address Peninsula commuter’s vision of an environmentally friendly, fast, reliable service. In anticipation of the high-speed rail project, the rail system would have to be fully electrified. The Electrification program facilities would be designed to accommodate high-speed rai! service. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends referral to Planning and Transportation Commission. Links/Resources: http://www.caltrain.comielectrification.html http :!iwww.ba’~q:ailalliance.or~/caltrain electrification Attachment J EL CAMINO REAL GRAND BOULEVARD INITIATIVE Project Description: The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and local and regional agencies united to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of E1 Camino Real. The Grand Boulevard Task Force is a broad federation of interested public and private parties that challenges communities to rethink the corridor’s potentia! for housing and urban development, balancing the need for cars and parking with viable options for transit, walking and biking. The Task Force endeavors to coordinate planning efforts, develop incentives and other mechanisms, and secure funding to make this vision a reality. E1 Camino Real would achieve its full potential as a place for residents to work, live, shop and play, creating links between communities that promote walking and transit and an improved and meaningful quality of life. E1 Camino Real would become a "grand boulevard of meaningful destinations" shaped by all the cities along its length and with each community realizing its full potential to become a destination full of valued places. Stretching from Daly City to San Jose, the vision is of a boulevard that connects communities by a mix of land uses designed to attract people. Cities are encouraged to design for neighborhoods that include high quality building designs and diverse land uses, preserve historic buildings and places, and enhance the economic and cultural diversity, with the broad involvement of residents, workers and local businesses. Rai! stations and bus facilities are valued not only as vital transportation services, but as public gathering places and assets to spur transit oriented development. Roadway improvements wil! be context sensitive while continuing to meet the need to move people and commerce and preserve environmental resources. Common themes that are identified in planning documents are: 1.Target ~owth in strategic areas along the corridor. 2.Encourage compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and construction. 3.Create a pedestrian-oriented envirorm~ent and improve streetscapes. 4.Develop a transit-oriented environment and maintain corridor throughput. 5.Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places. 6.Preserve and accentuate unique community character and identity. 7.Improve safety and health. 8.Preserve and enhance existing adjacent neighborhoods. 9.Strengthen bicycle connections with the corridor. 10.Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns. A demonstration project to implement the first phase of this project was proposed along Palo Alto’s premiere transit corridor at the intersection of Stanford Avenue. The Stanford Avenue/El Camino Real Streetscape and Intersection Design Improvements Project is located along one of the defined "corridors" in the program. Lead Ageney: The City of Palo Alto will be the implementing agency in charge of the environmental, design and construction of the Stanford Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection Improvements Project. Caltrans will be the lead Agency for the CEQA and NEPA of the project. A Cooperative Agreement between the City and Caltrans has been initiated and signed, which identifies the roles and responsibilities of each Agency for the delivery of the project. Cost: Stanford Avenue/E1 Camino Real Intersection Project: $1,668,000 $1,334,000 -Federal funds $334,000 - Local (City) funds Timeline: Environmental/Design - completion by Fall 2009 Construction - completion by Fall 2010 Existing Council Position: This project is consistent with Palo Alto’s E1 Camino Real Master Planning Study prepared in March 2003 and updated on March 2007. This project would continue the community participation and interagency collaboration initiated during the schematic design study phase of the project. Comprehensive Plan Policy: These project recommendations support and conform to Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Issues for Palo Alto: In 2002-2003 the City of Palo Alto and the Caltrans Headquarters jointly participated in a planning study of Route 82, E1 Camino Real in the City of Palo Alto. The study laid out a detailed conceptual plan for including Context Sensitive Solutions and multi-modal transportation planning throughout the corridor. This project is for the design and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle safety project in the City of Palo Alto on Route 82, E1 Camino Real, at the intersection of Stanford Avenue. The area of work extends approximately 100 feet along each of the four legs of the. intersection and comprises pedestrian and bicycle improvements and beautification at this intersection. The improvements include bulb outs at each comer of the intersection, realignlnent and enhanced paving of pedestrian crosswalks; two pedestrian refuges, with bollards and underground lighting; widened landscape medians with planting and trees; widened sidewalks with street trees; benches and trash receptacles; new ornamental street lights and signal poles; new storm inlets; restriping, repaving and median widening needed to conform to the existing roadway. These amenities will transform the project area into a multi-modal main street and provide visual cues to drivers that they are in an area of increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity. This project encompasses community benefits of pedestrian walkability, improved bike facilities, streetscape amenities and safety improvements, all of which should increase pedestrian/bicycle and transit mode trips. This project will also demonstrate the viability of the overall E1 Camino Real Master Plan concepts that can be extended to other segments of the corridor when funding becomes available. Staff Recommendation: Staffwill update City Council at end of design phase of the Stanford Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection Improvements project. Links/Resources: http :/iwx~v. mandboulevard.neti Citi of Pa!o Ai.to o© Route 82 E/Camino Real Stanf’ord Avenue Intersection Location A Existing Conditions Route 82 E1 Camino Real Stanford Avenue Intersection L.ocation A Photo Simulation of Improvements The Grand Boulevard Initiative: Linking Transportation and Economic Development Corinne Goodrich San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County, California THE VISION OF A GRAND BOULEVARD The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a historic inter- jurisdictional collaboration to bring about regional planning through a shared vision that links transportation and land use. Nineteen cities, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and local and regional agencies have united to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of the E1 Camino Real corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, California. The Vision of the Initiative is that "El Camino Real will achieve its full potential as a place for residents to work, live, shop and play, creating links between communities that promote walking and transit and an improved quality of life." This State Highway ’%vill become a grand boulevard of meaningful destinations shaped by all the cities along its length and with each community realizing its full potential to become a destination full of valued places." The Grand Boulevard Initiative began in 2006 with the creation of a Task Force comprised of entities with purview over the roadway and its surrounding uses. The goal of coordinating land use and transportation policy decisions for 43 miles of California State Highway 82 is ambitious. But the work of this "coalition of the willing" has demonstrated the potential to coordinate the transformation of an urban highway paralleled by two regional rail systems into a smart growth corridor. Success will expand the range of housing choices, spur economic development and support existing investments in transportation and urban infrastructure and services. This paper presents the process to develop the Shared vision for the E1 Camino Real corridor. It also cites some accomplishments to date under the Grand Boulevard Initiative, as well as accomplishments by some of the partners through parallel planning and investment in the corridor. Finally, recognizing that transit-oriented development is a tool that requires different policies and approaches in different contexts, it proffers commonalities that may be useful to other multi- jurisdictional efforts. THE NEED FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COLLABORATION State Highway 82 is the only major north-south arterial between San Francisco and San Jose. Known as E1 Camino Real for most of its length, the northern end in San Mateo County is called Mission Street within Daly City and the southern end within the City of San Jose is The Alameda. El Camino Real is like many other urban highways throughout the United States. Unquestionably a critical arterial, it is all too o~en a bland, featureless, traffic funnel that functions more like a local street place in some places and an urban highway in others. Development is car-oriented and predominantly low density and strip- commercial, with no concentrations of both housing and jobs. The experience for pedestrians and bicyclists is not only poor but dangerous. Walkable, vibrant public places are almost non-existent. Despite its historical function, the roadway presents substantial opportunity to develop mutually supportive transit infrastructure and land use patterns. Existing transit infrastructure and service on E1 Camino Real is significant. Two regional rail agencies and two county transit districts provide service within the corridor. All five San Mateo County BART rail stations are located on or in close proximity to the highway, with 52,000 average weekday boardings. Ten Caltrain rail stations lie within ¼ mile of E1 Camino Real and another five stations are within ½ mile of the roadway, accounting for over half of average weekday passenger boardings. Bus service on E1 Camino is the backbone of both the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority (VTA) systems. However the use of con,mute alternatives to the car (17%) is only slightly higher by residents living within ¼ mile of the corridor than for the counties as a whole (15%), reflecting the low density and lack of mixed use development and pedestrian accessibility. As is common in California cities, many other agencies have jurisdiction within the corridor. The roadway is owned and operated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and each county has a State mandated Congestion Management Agency to develop Congestion Management and Countywide Transportation plans. Nineteen cities and two counties control the land-use and development of property adjacent to the road and special districts provide services. Each entity has plans that include E1 Camino Real and all these entities perform well within their area of purview. But the lack of a coordinated vision for the highway has hindered implementation. Indications of existing and potentially growing problems include: o The highway carries high volumes of traffic but a majority of key intersections experience "long traffic delays" (LOS D) in peak hours ¯40 intersections exceed the state average accident rate e There are more jobs in each county than there are households and this imbalance is projected to significantly increase by 2030, causing even higher housing costs and in-commuting from other counties E1 Camino Real carries more cars and hosts more businesses and residences than any other street on the Peninsula but has never had the benefit of an ongoing, coordinated planning process. EVOLUTION OF THE INITIATIVE The idea to transform El Camino Real into a Grand Boulevard evolved from an effort by the San Mateo County Transit District (the District) to revitalize the areas around the county’s BART and Caltrain rail stations. Beginning in 2002, the Project for Public Spaces led The Peninsula Corridor Plan to challenge communities to "think" of transportation as much more than just moving people and vehicles, but as the key to improving livability on the Peninsula. As cities developed their concept plans, the five communities with rail stations on E1 Camino Real found that the road was a barrier to livability. The vision that resulted was to transform E1 Camino Real into a great street - a Grand Boulevard - that was walkable and livable. A Symposium held in late 2004 to launch the idea in San Mateo County featured different views about the corridor’s potential by federal, state and local officials and leaders. They were united in the belief that the corridor falls short of its potential as a place to live, work, and shop, with active public spaces. At the same time, another effort to focus on the corridor was underway by Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network through a grant by the James ]rvine Foundation. Silicon Valley Main Street (2004) helped the cities along the corridor in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties better understand the common challenges of Highway 82, highlighted success stories, and identified tools or models to guide local improvements. The excellent ideas brought forward in the study begged for implementation. In late 2005 the leaders behind these two efforts agreed to explore whether both parties could collaborate on a Grand Boulevard Initiative that would include both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Other sponsors include the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) and the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). Elected and appointed officials in all 19 cities, two counties, Caltrans, regional agencies and representatives from business, labor, housing and environmental conservation agreed to participate on a 47-member Grand Boulevard Task Force. A March 2006 exploratory meeting led to the first official Task Force meeting in April 2006 and quarterly meetings have ensued. It was apparent from the beginning that the partnership brought a diversity of perspectives to the table and provided a forum for collaborative decision making, while respecting the autonomy and purview of each member. The Task Force adopted a Vision, Challenge Statement and Guiding Principles, demonstrating that different and potentially competing interests can collaborate to move the Grand Boulevard Initiative forward. There are no by-laws, no quorum requirement and no formally adopted meeting minutes. The Task Force is supported by a Working Committee comprised of staff representatives of the member entities and ad hoc Subcommittees for Multimodal Design Standards, Land Use and Finance. The San Mateo County Transit District provides the majority of staff support. Task Force Member Agencies San Mateo County Transit District (SMCTD) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) . Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network Sz.a Mateo Economic Development Assoc. (SA~MCEDA) San Mateo City/County Assoc. of Governments (C/CAG) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Caltrans, District 4 San Mateo County Santa Clara County Town of Atherton City of Belmont City of Burlingame Town of Colma City of Daly City Town of Hillsborough City of Los Altos City of Men!o Park City of Mountain View City of Menlo Park City of Millbrae City of Palo Alto City of Redwood City City of San Carlos City of San Jose City of San Mateo City of Santa Clara City of South San Francisco City of Sunnyvale Building Trades Council, San Mateo County Building Trades Council, Santa Clara County BT Commercial / Terranomics Committee for Green Foothills Electronic Arts The Greenbelt Alliance Peninsula Habitat for Humanity Safeway Stanford University ACCOMPLISHMENTS Although active for less than two years, the Grand Boulevard Initiative has taken some important steps forward. Meanwhile the Initiative’s efforts are drawing attention fi’om key opinion leaders and the news media. The information and reports listed below can be found on the web site at www.grandboulevard.net. Grand Boulevard Web Site (August 2006) Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network developed the web site and maintains staff updates. In addition to rosters, meeting notices and agendas, and press coverage, the site includes a Library of plans and reports that include El Camino Real, a list of planned and ongoing Projects in the corridor, and information of interest to the Task Force members, such as examples of and links to Transit-Oriented Development projects. Existing Conditions Report (August 2006) This report details existing demographic, land use, roadway and transit conditions and planned roadway and development projects. ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.) Adoption of Vision and Challenge Statement (October 2006) Developing and adopting a Vision and Challenge Statement was the Task Force’s first undertaking. The Grand Boulevard Vision E1 Camino Real will achieve its full potential as a place for residents to work, live, shop and play, creating links between communities that promote walking and transit and an improved and meaningful quality of life. The Challenge El Camino Real will become a "grand boulevard of meaningful destinations" shaped by all the cities along its length and with each community realizing its full potential to become a destination full of valued places. The Grand Boulevard Task Force is a broad federation of interested public and private parties that challenges communities to rethink the corridor’s potential for housing and urban development, balancing the need for cars and parking with viable options for transit, walking and biking. Stretching from Daly City to San Jose, the vision is of a boulevard that connects communities by a mix of land uses designed to attract people. Cities are encouraged to design for neighborhoods that include high quality building designs and diverse land uses, preserve historic buildings and places, and enhance our economic and cultural diversity, with the broad involvement of residents, workers and local businesses. Rail stations and bus facilities are valued not only as vital transportation services, but as public gathering places and assets to spur transit oriented development. Roadway improvements will be context sensitive while continuing to meet the need to move people and commerce and preserve environmental resources. Above all, change wilt recognize and incorporate our history and create a sense of community. Adoption of Guiding Principles (April 2007) The Guiding Principles establish a working framework for each entity to improve E1 Camino Real. The Principles were drafted by staff from a review of the plans of various cities and agencibs. The Task Force debated and refined the Guiding Principles at length and subsequently adopted them. Task Force member entities are now adopting the principles to guide their own planning for their share of E1 Camino. Guiding Principles 1. Target housing and job growth in strategic areas along the corridor 2. Encourage compact mixed-use development and high- quality urban design and construction 3. Create a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full access to and between public areas and private developments 4. Develop a balanced multimodal corridor to maintain and improve mobility of people and vehicles along the corridor 5. Manage Parking Assets 6. Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places 7. Preserve and accentuate unique and desirable community character and the existing quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods. 8. Improve safety and public health 9. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor 10. Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.) Grand Boulevard Recognition Program (Fall 2007) The two counties and cities competed for three categories of awards for plans and projects that exemplify the Guiding Principles: "Visionary Awards" for planning documents, "Vanguard Awards" for projects built within the last two years, and "Signature Awards" for projects under development that exemplify the Grand Boulevard Vision and Guiding Principles. The idea is to show other communities through these model projects and plans that it can be done. "Grand Boulevard ]VIuitimodai Transportation Corridor" Statewide Planning Grant In 2007 Caltmns awarded a $300,000 planning grant to the San Mateo County Transit District, in parmership with the Santa Clam Valley Transportation Authority and the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. The grant brings together the transit and congestion management agencies in both counties to provide a better link between ~xansportation and land use. The plan will address: 1) the future type and level of transit service in the corridor; 2) strategies for multi-modal access; 3) strategies to facilitate coordination with Caltrans regarding design; 4) the ongoing operation and maintenance of the roadway. PARALLEL PLANNING AND INVESTMENT The policy steps taken by the Task Force have been paralleled by substantial investment in the corridor by the member agencies. These investments can be viewed as the public sector’s venture capital, parlaying public projects and programs into private development. Following are some examples of how public agencies are leading by example. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) VTA has made substantial transit investment on E1 Camino Real by inlxoducing the 522 Rapid Bus service as an overlay to local Route 22 and has realized significant gains in ridership. A BRT Strategic Plan is under development, as well as an ITS/Signal Integration project for the corridor. VTA’s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program and manual were developed in partnership with member agencies, developers, designers, and the community. The program advocates for a higher level of partnership and provides strategies that integrate all transportation modes, with a strong emphasis on pedestrian environments, transit, street design, and the interrelationships with sites and buildings. Policy Planning Grants, Capital Planning Grants, Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program Capital Grants are available. A recent grant to the City of Palo Alto provided $1.2 million for capital improvements to the E1 Camino Real/Stanford Avenue intersection. San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) C/CAG created its nationally recognized TOD Incentive Program to incentivize high density housing near transit. Funded by ST[P, CMAQ and STP funds, the program has completed three cycles and provided funds for projects of greater than 40 units per acre within 1/3 mile of rail stations. The fourth cycle will include housing projects with frontage on E1 Camino Real. During the first three rounds of funding, approximately $4.3 million in grants was awarded to housing projects on E1 Camino Real that fell within station areas. C/CAG also authorized a four-year Countywide Congestion Relief Program which includes $500,000 per year to assist jurisdictions in the El Camino Corridor with land use and transportation planning. San Mateo County Transit District (District) In 2007, the San Mateo County Transit District secured a $3 million ’Federal Earmark for the Grand Boulevard Project through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The District awarded $2 million of funding to five cities to build over $6 million in capital improvement projects on E1 Camino Real that support the Grand Boulevard vision of revitalizing the roadway, including improving aesthetics, pedestrian access, transit use and the quality of life along the corridor. These five projects will be built over the next two years. Two District transit infrastructure projects are helping lay the groundwork for rapid bus service. Adaptive Transit Signal Priority uses GPS satellite information to grant buses priority based upon on-time performance and passenger loading while not substantially interfering with cross traffic. The Advanced Traveler Information System gives passengers at select rail stations arrival and departure information for buses. COMMON GROUND Many aspects of the approach taken to achieve success in the Initiative may prove useful to other agencies seeking to link transportation and economic development in a multi-jurisdictional environment. Create a Vision + Tools to share and build the vision Developing the Vision, Challenge Statement and Guiding Principles prompted Task Force members, staff and others to realize that they shared the same ideas for livable and sustainable communities. At this time, none of the member entities envision controversy around adopting the Guiding Principles in their respective jurisdictions. The liveliest Task Force discussion around the Guiding Principles revolved around specifying "housing" for targeted growth. The Recognition Program, Existing Conditions Report, Project List and Library have proved to be good mechanisms to advance the vision and spur discussion among elected officials and staff. Find Champions The Initiative has benefited from both national and local champions. Congressman Tom Lantos keynoted our 2004 Symposium and secured a federal earmark for the San Mateo County Transit District. Key local elected officials have been leaders on the Task Force and in their respective city, county or agency. Nurture a Spirit of Collaboration San Mateo County CEO/General Manager Michael J. Scanlon coined the term a "coalition of the willing." It is recognized that when someone has a problem, we deal with it. Participation is voluntary and it was an important premise that no one feels that anyone else’s idea is being forced upon them. As such, each entity is free to participate and act to interpret how they see this effort meeting their needs. Develop Implementation Strategies The Multimodal Transportation Corridor planning process is one example of an implementation strategy that will bring all relevant entities to the table to chart the transportation future of the corridor. All modes will be addressed under a partnership between the two transit and congestion management agencies, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the MPO) as the designated grant recipient, Caltrans as the grantor, and cities and other agencies participating through the Task Force. Be Proactive - look for opportunities Over the past four years, San Mateo County Transit District staff has assisted cities in developing concept plans and securing planning and capital grant funding. A TLC planning grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission awarded to the District advanced streetscape concept plans to integrate the Caltrain stations with E1 Camino Real in three cities. Technical assistance provided by the District advanced a successful TLC capital grant for Daly City. Evolve the Program - be flexible and adaptive The global nature of the Vision and Guiding Principl~ allows the woY~ of the Task Force to be flexible and adaptive to changing priorities. There are those that would criticize the Initiative as too general and too vague. But the beauty is that every new idea can be treated like a good idea and no city is obligated to implement policies. Educate & Re-educate - and educate some more One of the most exciting aspects of the collaboration is the ability to learn from other agencies and stakeholders and surface ideas for linking transportation and economic development and creating livable communities. Transportation planners and city planners rarely have the forum to work together on an ongoing basis. The same is true of city elected officials and local appointed officials. CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE As for any organizational entity that is not mandated by law with dedicated funding, the major challenges for the Grand Boulevard Initiative will be maintaining momentum, funding and political support. Revitalizing the Peninsula’s main roadway into a walkable Grand Boulevard with new shops, housing, transportation, parks and active public spaces likely will be the work of a lifetime, but this work has tremendous potential to enhance the quality of life for generations of residents throughout the Peninsula. Attachment K PALO ALTO INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT Project Description: The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC) conceptual plan consists of both transportation elements and community amenities. Transportation elements include an increase from 2 to 4 tracks at the station with center boarding platforms to enhance rail passenger service, an expanded bus transfer facility, longer rail bridges over University Avenue to open up access and view corridors, improved access to and integration with Downtown and Stanford University, an at-grade intersection of Alma Street and University Avenue, the re-design of University Avenue between Alma and Palm Drive, and provision of a bicycle and pedestrian under-crossing of Caltrain near Alma and Everett. Community amenities include an urban park and civic space, public art, and urban design features. Lead Agency: City of Palo Alto, VTA and/or Caltrain depending upon phasing and elements of project. Cost: $200-275 million. Palo Alto has secured a total of $1.7 million in Federal Transit Administration Grants to implement the environmental and conceptual engineering for the project. The Valley Transportation Plan VTP 2030 includes $45 million (year 2000 dollars) from Measure A sales taxes for the project in years 2015-2030. Timeline: In 2005, the VTA constructed the first component of the PAITC plan, the expanded bus transfer facility. During 2006-2007, Palo Alto completed the technical studies to support the environmental CEQAiNEPA review of the project using the first of three federal earmarks the City secured for the project. Next step involves The ultimate timeline for the project will largely be determined by the ability of the project partners to secure necessary funding for the project. Existing Council Position: On March 18, 2002, the Palo Alto City Council reviewed the Palo Alto Intermodal Conceptual Plan. The Council directed staff to continue development of the PAITC project including: preparation of a fu!l environmental analysis before a final project design is executed; securing federal, state and regional funding; creation of an interagency consortium to complete the engineering design and eventually implement the project. The Council further endorsed directing representatives to the VTA to advocate for the early and fu!l allocation of the $45,000,000 devoted to the PAITC in the Measure A Expenditure Plan authorized by voters in November 2000. This figure has been updated to $97.6 million (in year of construction dollars) in the December 2007 Measure A Semi-Annual report. In April 2005, the City Council took the position that Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center Measure A funding should commence in the year 2015, not delayed to 2025-2030 as proposed in the proposed VTA Long-Term Capital Investment Program. Comprehensive Plan Policy: Program T-14, Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-94 design study Issues for Palo Alto: This is a long range project that will need to be implemented over time. Palo Alto has recently completed a number of technical studies to support the future environmental analysis for this project using the first of three federal earmarks for the project. The work products include the Transit Patronage AnalYSiS, Project Implementation Plan, Historic Resources Report, Cultural Resources Report, Initial Site Analysis, and Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The Implementation Plan identified constraints to implementing the PAITC project as originally envisioned in the 2002 Plan. Since then, Caltrain has updated its long range plan (Caltrain 2025 Plan) and no longer envisions the need for four tracks and center boarding platforms at the station for Caltrain purposes. This could change if the California High Speed Rail project is approved and a 4-track system is required along the entire Caltrain line. Also, the Implementation Plan recommends a modification to the proposed Alma!University intersection to address road grade and driveway access issues along Alma and at the Alma/University Avenue intersection not identified in the 2002 plan (See Exhibits 1 and 2). The updated plan includes a single point intersection rather than the original two-point intersection. City and VTA staff met with Federal Transit Administration staff in May of 2007 to discuss the use of the remaining $1.5 million in federal grant funding. FTA staff encouraged staff to pursue the short term goal of building as the next phase of the project the transit driveway onto E1 Camino Real at the Quarry Road intersection. VTA has retained a transportation consultant prepare the conceptual plan for the driveway to facilitate and improve bus ingress and egress to the transit center as well as to reevaluate the usage of the transit center. One of the primary issues for the City is the daunting cost and long-term, complex, multi- agency implementation strategies that will be required to move this project forward. Another issue relates to the long term use of the Red Cross site and desirability for transit oriented development on this site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends this matter be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their review- and recommendations to the City Council. Links/Resources: none r~o0~- Attachment L VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) GOVERNA_NCE Project Description: The VTA contracted the Hay Group to conduct a financial and organizational assessment of VTA operations to strengthen the Board’s effectiveness, governance and financial management. The Hay Group report identified Board turnover and the length of board member terms in office as a critical challenge to effective governance. In particular the report identified high turnover among the small city groups. The proposed changes in VTA governance include: expanding the small city groupings from 3 to 4 groups, based on geographic proximity and population; dropping the practice of rotating seats within each grouping; encouraging the reappointment of board members to a term totaling 4 years instead of 2 years, and developing a process of selecting VTA Directors with the required experience and qualifications. Currently the VTA Board is composed of 12 members from the following groupings developed at the time of the creation of the VTA based on population: Group Membership Board seats Group 1 San Jose 5 Group 2 Los Altos, Palo Alto, Mozmtain View Szmnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Altos Hills Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos Monte Sereno, Saratoga Gih’oy, Milpitas, Mo~Nan Hill Santa Clara County Group3 3 1 Group4 1 Group 5 2 No changes are proposed for Groups 1 and 5. The proposed reconfigured small city groupings are based first on geographic proximity and second on population. The small city groups would be increased from 3 to 4, but the total number of Board members representing these cities would remain at 5 members. The proposed structure for Small City Groupings: Group Pop/Seat West Valley Members Population Seats Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos Hills Los Gatos, tVIonte Sereno, Saratoga 163, 749 1 163, 749 Northwest Los Altos, Palo Alto, iVlountain View 163,295 I 163,295 Northeast Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara 309,574 2 154, 788 South County Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San Martin 90, 618 1 90,618 Lead Agency: VTA Cost: NA Timeline: tentative schedule is for the VTA Board to take action in August Existing Council Position: The City Council has not taken a position on this new proposal. Comprehensive Plan Policy: Policy T-49, Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. Issues for Palo Alto: The proposed configuration would align the groupings along geographic proximity, better than the current structure, but the number of cities within the 4 groupings varies substantially. Palo Alto would benefit by being in a grouping of only 3 cities with contiguous geographic proximity. However, with the creation of the South County grouping, the concept of proportional representation is compromised. The proposal calls for Board members to have experience and knowledge of transportation issues, gained through service on the VTA Board Policy Advisory Committee or a VTA Board advisory committee. Pa!o Alto has had regular representation on the Policy Advisory Committee and past VTA Board members from Palo Alto have been very knowledgeable upon joining the Board. The issue of Board member term, however, could result in decreased direct representation on the Board by a Palo Alto Council member, as the term for the designated member would typically increase from 2 to 4 years in order to reduce turnover and retain expertise on the Board. It is yet undefined how each grouping would select the member. VTA Board did not take a position on this matter at the April meeting, but deferred action unti! other options could be explored by individual members. If approved the new governance structure would begin in January 2010. Other options such as direct election of Board members by district, are not within the purview- of the Board to implement without a change in state law. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Policy and Services Committee support the concept of proportional representation and recommend that the City Council direct staff to prepare a report to the Council for policy direction in time for Palo Alto’s position to be considered by the VTA Board of Directors later this summer. Links/Resources: none BOARD MEMOR_&NDUM Date: Committee Meeting Date: Board Meeting Date: ACTION ITEM February 27. 2008 March 13. 2008 April 3. 2008 TO:Policy Advisory Commiuee Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Michael T. Bums General Manager Jim Lawson Senior Policy Advisor VTA Governance RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors amend the VTA Administrative Code to make the following changes to VTA’s governance: 1.Reconfigure the small city groupings to include a new group comprised of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Milpitas, and move Los Altos Hills to the West Valley City Group. 2.Eliminate the concept of city groupings selecting their representative(s) through a rotation process. Each of the city groups will "select" their representative(s) to serve as a Director on the VTA Board. 3.VTA Directors will still serve two-year terms. However, the appointing authorities will be encouraged to reappoint representatives to consecutive terms. 4.Include a process for selecting VTA Directors within the city groupings. VTA Directors should have the required experience and qualifications in transportation. BACKGROUND: VTA previously engaged the Hay Group to conduct a comprehensive Organization and Financial Assessment (Assessment). As a result of that Assessment, VTA received a set of recommendations designed to stren~hen VTA’s governance, financiaI management and organizational effectiveness. The Board has made a number of decisions to implement the recommendations resulting from the Assessment, and VTA is beginning to realize the intended benefits. In the area of governance, the Assessment identified Board turnover as a critical challenge to the governance structure at VTA. Turnover is particularly high for the small city groupings. The Assessment recommended that the VTA Board look at alternatives to lengthen the term of office for Directors and also work with appointing authorities to ensure that eligibility for selection to serve on the VTA Board include appropriate qualifications and experience, as well as the time left in the elected officials term of office so that they do not ~term out" during their tenure as a VTA Director. To further address these issues, as well as concerns regarding the geographical configuration of the small city groupings, Director Greg Sellers was asked to work with VTA staff and consultants to develop recommendations regarding VTA’s governance for the Board’s consideration. At the February 7th Board of Directors meeting, Director Sellers provided a brief update to the Board on his activities and his initial recommendations. In addition, Director Sellers sent letters on February 15, 2008, to ever)" Santa Clara County Mayor, VTA Board member and VTA Policy Advisory Committee member with a summary of the governance recommendations. In his letter, Director Sellers explained the purpose for the recommendations and offered to meet with each city council to answer questions and obtain input. DISCUSSION: The current small city’ group configuration was based primarily on population and secondarily on geography. VTA’s history and Directors’ experience have shown that cities that are geographically proximate have very similar issues, challenges and opportunities. The following recommendations organize cities based on geographic proximity first and population second. The population analysis is based on current data, and also contemplates areas of new and planned growth in the county. The proposed recommendations will reconfigure the existing small city groupings and add one new- group based on geographic proximity and population size to create "regions" within the county (see the following chart). A fourth region would be added in recognition that San Martin is seeking to incorporate as a city and that South County region is the fastest growing region in Santa Clara County. Page 2 of 3 Proposed Smal! City Groupings wEST VAL LI~Y ~1 SEAT) ~38,138 Cu~ino 53,000 kos AltosH{{Is 8,482 kos Gatos i 29,132 -Monte ] ......;;?eno L 3,900,31,o9, ~ 163,749 /seat 163,749 NORTH WEST Los Altos Mountain View NORTH EAST Milpitas (1 SEAT) 29,300 !71,995 Santa Clara Pa!o Alto 62,000 { Sunnyvale I [ 163~295 (2 SEATS) 65,050 1!0,771 133,754 I 309,575 1 ! .... S4,7ss -t SOUTH COUNTY (::l. SEAT)__ G!l[~ ~8,527 Morgan Hill_< 37 091 San MaFt/n 5,000 ! 90,6!8 I 90,618 The groupings for the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County are unchanged. Applying to all groups would be the requirement that the representative(s) be chosen "on the basis of the appointees’ expertise, experience or knowledge relative to transportation issues."’1 Such expertise should be gained primarily through prior service on the VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). Other appropriate experience would be membership on VTA’s Citizens Advisory. Committee, Committee for Transit Accessibility or other VTA advisory committees. Experience can also be gained through membership on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and its advisory committees, Caltrain and its advisory committees, and the League of California Cities and its committees pertaining to transportation. These are illustrative of areas where the necessary experience and expertise can be gained. They are not intended to limit the evaluation of a perspective appointee’s expertise, experience or knowledge. Directors would be encouraged to serve consecutive terms based upon their performance representing their region and the best interests of the VTA. Directors must be selected to serve on the VTA Board based on qualifications and time left in their term in office as an elected official. These recommendations are within the VTA Board’s current authority to implement. They would raise the level of expertise among all VTA Board members while providing a new level of consistency for all city groups. If enacted, the new governance structure would begin in January 2010 to coincide with the start of new Board terms. Prepared by: Scott Haywood, Policy & Community Relations Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Administrative Code, Article 2, Sec. 2-1 I, p.4 Page 3 of 3