Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0172.092",~ .. -. rj·~. , ,. ."" ~, " -I . - March 5, 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California santa Clara county TransportatinQIl Plan T201Q Public Hearing Members of the Council: REPORT IN B'RIEF On February 11, 1992, the Santa Clara countr Transit District Board directed that a hearing be held on March 24 to (a) consider amendments to the T201D Plan rail corridor priorities j and (b) formally adopt the amended T2010 Plan as tt.e Transit District General Transit Plan. This staff report discusses the cha~ges in rail priorities and r-econ'.rnends that council: (a) support the Boardrs movement of Cal Train projects from Tier 2 to Tier 1; (b) support possible movement c·f the Dcwntown San Francisco Cal Train extension to Tier 1 t (c) not support the Board' s movement of the Capitol/Do .... ntown-Evergreen Coz"ridor fro:rn Tier 2 to Tier 1; and d) support the Board's reordering of 'i'ier 2 corridors accordi.ng to established priorities. BACKGROUND Sant..a Clara Countr developed the T2010 Plan in 1991, under the auspices of the Te.chnical Advi50D~ and Oversight comnittees .. which were establ ished for the study process. Palo }I.lto staff participated in the Technical Advisory Committee. The T2010 Draft Final Plan (July 1991) proposed that all CalTrain improvements be in "Tier In {the top priority) of rail corridors, but Y,'as vague about what specific improvements !Jere included. In CMR: 415: 91 (September 5, 1991), staff reco~mended that COUTlcil endorse the T2010 Draft Final Plan, with a fe..... specific additional reco!!lJ!l.e.ndations. Primary among these ...... ere that T2010 place stronger emphasis on, and provide increased clarity about, CalTrain improvements. Council r 5 recomrnendat ions "Were conveyed to SLlpervisor Dianne McKenna in a let.ter dated September 16, 1991 (Attachment 1). CMR:172:92 P' o· , I ! ~~ '~ - On Octo~er 9, 1991, t:be "1'2010 oversight Cor.,mittee formally adopte-.:i the T201Q Draf+_ Final Plan, but ma-de significant changes to the rail priori ties by moving the <1iaj ority of Cal Train improvements from Tier 1A to Tier 2, and lowering the priority of the Vasona corridor from Tier lA to Tier lB. On October 23, 1991, at Palo Alto staff's suggestion t _Mayor Sutorius sent a strongly-... 'orded letter to Supervisor McY-:nna stating that the oversight Committee had taken a major step back .... ards rega!:dir"'g CalTrain. The letter urged the Board of supervisors to adopt the ::-ail priorities as stated before the Oversight Cortl.1!i'ttee :made its changes (Attachment 2). On October 23~ 1991, the Santa Clara County Transportation Cmr.znission consi<'1ered the T2010 Draft Final Plan 1 ar.d voted to restore all CalTrai~ projects to Tier lAI reversing the recOlrmlendaticn of the Oversight Comr:dttce. Final!y, all October 29, 1991, the Board of Supervisors (also a~ting as the Transit Distrir.t Board) adopted the final '1'201 C Plan, \IIhich l l.lnfortunately, included tho:> reversal of the Tra!'lsportatio!1 Commission's recorT'.rnendatior:., resulting in moving the majority of CalTrain improvements back to Tier 2 (as originally recommended by the ovoarsight Comi;Jitt~e). Attachments 3 and 4 are the table of rail cor~idor priorities and m~p showing corridor locations, as approved by the Board on October 29. Sir.ce July 1991. !,./hen the 72010 Jraft Fin,)l Plan 'Was published, and continuing to date, there has been considerable conce~n and discussion in Santa Clara C0unty over rail corridor priorities. In December 1991 and January 1992, the. T2010 OVersight Co:nmittee rank.ed all 12 Tier 1 and Tier 2 rail corridors accoLding tv criteria reflecting the need for the service, project effectiveness. and implementation capability. Corridors were ranked within the existing Tier 1 and 2 structure (refer to bottom table in Attachment 5). and were also ranked independently of the existing tiers (refer to top table). A chronology of Santa Clara County and Palo Alto City Council milestones relatec! to rail corridor priorities is provided in. Att.acbnent 6. RECENT ACTIONS BY~ THE TfI_1!..NS!T DISTRl.i='T _BaAED RBGARDING RAIL PRIORI'rIES On February 11, 1992, the Transit District Board determined that certain changes should be made in the Tier land 2 rail priorities, which it had previously approved on October 29, 1991. The Board also determined that it needs to take for.rnel action to adopt the T2010 Plan (with rail priority amendments) as the "Transi t District Gen~ral Transit Plan~. A Tra~sit District Board public hearing on the above actions is scheduled for March 24, 1992, preceded by a Transportation Commission meeting on the same subject on March 11. Ev.en though the Bo3rd actually nadopted n the 'I'2010 Plan on October 29, 1991, the Board needs to go through the procedural CMR:172:92 3/5/92 Page 2 • ; I j I r. , . • ;.~. -i· . ' ,,--. formality ot adopting it again as the Transit District's General Plan. T~e February 11 actions of the Board are describ~d in a memo from Lar,,:t"e.:nce Reuter I Director ct the Transportation Agency, t.o the Chair of the Transporta~i~n Commission (Attachment 7). The Board's February 11 changes to the T2010 rail corridor priorities, ~hich are the subject of this staff report, are shown in Attachment a. The Board has made three major changes in rail corridor pricrities, as described below. Capitol/Downtown-Evergreen Corridor The Board has determined that this corri,jor .... ill be moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1. A majority of Board members felt that the Capitol/Downtown-Evergreen corridor appeared to be promising, and worthy of placement in Tier 1. At one point j.rj the pla!".r.ing process, this corridor was ac~ually two corridors ("Capitol" and "Downtown-Evergreen") , ',lI"ith both corridors serving the eastern side of San Jose. As shown in the corridor rankings in the top table of Attachment 5, the Capitol corridor ranked third, and the DowntO'.m­ Everqr~en corridor ranked eighth. (The top table ran.ks corridors 'Witho:.J.t the constraint of the two-tier division.) The Board's rec(:nt 3.ction now pla~es this cOI'r'.bination corridor in Tier 1. All Tier 1 corridors are considered as Peo-equal first priority". The impact of the Board's change i~ status for thls corridor. is that it will compete ... .'ith all other Tier 1 corridors for fir.;;t-available funding. First-available funding is I inked to a possible Santa Clara county ballot measure in November 1992 which would establish a new half-cent sales tax to take effect when Measure A expires in April 1995, thU5 providing t;-,e local mateh to federal funds for some Tier 1 corridors. Tier 1 corridors include the Tier 1 Cal Train program. From the regional (intercounty) perspective I both Tier 1 and 2 CalTrain programs are probably the most important. As shown in the first t?ble in Attac~~ent 5, both Tier I and 2 Cal Train corridor progr3ns rank ahead of the Dow'"TIto ... .rn-Evergre'Sn corridor. bl.<t the Capitol corridor is ranked ahead of the Tier 2 CalTrain program. In keeping with Council's past recommendations to the Board of Suupervisors (refer to Attachments 1 and 2) ~ staff recorumends that Council not support the move of the Capitol/Downtown-Evergreen corridor to Tier 1. Staff recommends that Council support keeping this corridor in the priority order established by the Oversight Commit.tee, "",hich 'Would place it some·",·here in Tier 2. lQJJ.South County (CalTrainl Corridor At the February 11 Board meeting, supe=visor McKenna proposed, and the Board concurred, that several ':;:'ier 2 Cal Train corridor projects be moved from Tier 2 to Tier 1. The specific projects to be moved CMR:172:92 ~/5/92 page 3 - are listed in the third footnote of the Boardls revised priority table (Attachment S), which are; line electrification l San Jose Multiltodal Station l centralized traffic control I ne.,,' rolling stock {fill of 'Which would 30110.. expansion of service to 10D daily trains), and other improvemer.'(.s related t.:l Gilroy service. The only projects now remaining in the Tier 2 CalTrain program are the Dc;;mto'Wn San Francisco ex:ten~ion (the largest single Cal Train program cost item) and Dumbarton Bridge Service. The Board's change is a significant positive action th~t ~ill place a large part of the CalTrain program into competition for first-available funding. Staff recommends that Council support this change~ Staff further recomme~js that Council continue to support the Downtc~n San Francisco CalTrain extension and its place~ent in Tier 1. Even though. the 'Tier 1 CalTrain progratt. no ... includes many mc'r~ projects than originally adopted bjo' the Board in Octcber 199L the estimated capital cost has remained unchanged at $200··$250 million. County staff made some adjustnents to the estimates, one of which ..... ·as to remove the cost of the now-consu:rr.watec. CalTraiJ"1. rlght-of-...... a~~ purchase from the estimate. county staff believes that the $200- $250 million range is a reasonable estimate of the funds needed to qet started on all the Tier 1 Cal Train projects. Reordering of Remaj ... ninomJ'ier 2 Corridors The third action of the Beard Or'. February 11 regarding rail priorities was to reorder the remaining Tier 2 corridors according to the pricrities determined by the oversight Committee, as reflected in the second table of Attachment 5. This action is in keeping witt~ county staff and Transportation Commission reco~~cndat1Dns. Falo Alto staff recommends that Council support this action. Although the Board will be considering o~ly the above changes at the March 24 public hearing, the floor ",·i 11 presu!':Iably t..e open for all discussion related to Santa Clara Count). rail priorities. It is possible that the Boa:cd may consider other Changes in priori ties besides those discussed above. This 'Iorould be an appropriate opportunity for Council, if it desired, to transmit any other considerations en santa Clara County rail corridor priorities to the Transit District Board. RECOMMENDATIONS staff recommends that Council direct the Mayor to send a letter to the Santa Clara CDunt}o~ Transit District Board~ stating the follo\tling: CMR:172:92 3/5/92 Page 4 I • I I~ , ii' 1 .... -. 1. Palo Alto strongly supports the Board's movement to Tier 1 of CalTrain projects formerly in Tier 2. This is a significant positive step tavard recogniz.i.-,g the cost-effective!'1ess of CalTrain cmr.paretJ to other rail alternatives in the County, and recognizing its status as an existir.g, proven system ·with growinq ridership. 2. For the same reasons l Palo Alto would SUPPC):' t the movement of the Downtown San Francisco CalTrain Bxter.sio~ Tr~rn Tier 2 to Tier 1. 3.. Palo Alto does not support the Board ts :r:::ovement of the Capitol/Downto .... n-Evergreen corridor to Tier 1. This places und~e competition for first-available funding on the higher­ ranked and more full)~-studied "Tier lA corridors~ including CalTrain. 4. Palo Alto supports the Board's reordering of remaining Tier 2 corridors according to the ranking established by the T2010 Oversigbt committee. Respectfully submitted, C~~ ;t;:;"Ptddif J~, KENNE'rH R. SCHREIBER. /" Direotor of Planning CARL STOFFEL Transportation Engineer and COmIl'.L1nity Environnent FLEMING Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Sept.ember 16, 1991 letter frolJ1 Mayor SutoriU5 2. October 21 1991 letter from Mayor Sutorius 3.. Table of Rail Corridor Priorities l October 29, 1991 4. Map of Rail Corridors 5. Oversight Committee Rail Corridor Rankings 6. swnmary of milestones regarding rail corridor priori ties 7. Memo from Lawrence Feuter to Barbara Tryon, February 12, 1992 8. Table of Rail Corridor Priorities, February 11~ 1992 Related Staff Report: CPI'".R:415:91, September 51 1991, Praf.'; Santa Cl_~X __ ~ __ Countv Transportati9JJ. Plan (T2010) CC: Santa Clara county Transportation COlllnlission Jim Lightbody, Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Peninsula Rail 2000 (Alan Hirsch) CMR: 172: 92 L 3/5/92 page 5 <~~ft :,~.~;,~,~: ;:"' .. 1- - c .... 'co;: C .. "":"><[ .... uo:l"l .... I,!, 3 .. !l-2~.s .. ATTACHMENT 1 September 16, 1991 Supervisor Dianne McKenna Chairperson, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors County Government center lOth Floor, East Wing 70 West Heddinq Street San Jose, CA 95110 Dear supervisor McKenna: ~.-'"-<-.. (""~---- On Monday, September, 9, 1991, t.he Palo Al to city Council Itet to revie.w and consider the Draft Final Sa1"ta Clara County Transportation Plan (T2010). The council votsJ unani~ously to endorse the T2010 Plan, but felt strongly that CalTrain, and transit in general, deserved more recognition and support~ The followinq specific additional r·~commendations .... 'ere adop.ted by the Council ~ 1. Palo Alto reco!!l!llends that the first and highest priority of state flexible congestion relief funds, and any other flexible transportation funds, be for transit l with a specific emphasis on CalTrain irnproveJJlents. in the V.S. 1D1 corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy. 2. Palo Ai to recorunends that the T2010 Plan recognize and be speciric regarding existing CalTrain service and future p12nning for regional rail in the u.s. 101 corridor, by stating that! (a) CalTrain is the preferred rail mode tor the U.S. 101 corridor: (b) CalTrain service should be ~pgraded according to the CalTrain Short Range Transit Plan, 'Which includes purchase of the right-of-way, extension to downtown San Francisco, in order to connect vith other regional transit services, and increased train frequency to 96 daily trains; (cJ feasibility studies for elimination of grade crossings should b~ begun; and Cd) SCCTA will identify the amount of the proposed annual funding allocation to cover these projects. ,. \ < • '- Supervisor Dianne Mc?\:en,."',a September 16, 1991 Page 2 3. Palo Alto recomme.r,ds that, in the 20-year (2000-20~O) reco~endaticns for the highway element, the follo~ing option be chosen, helping to tip the balance toward transit: Reduce tbe highway program by eliminating or scaling hack plans for interchanges and added capacity; this co~ld reduce highway r-ecommendations Py $200-400 million (T2010 Plan, page 48) • 4. Palo Alto recommends that the T201.0 Plan include. and actively prom~te existing and increased transit service connecting Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties via the Dumbarton Bridge. S Palo Alto recommends that $i;nali~ation i~provements and interconnections on oregon r Page Mill, and Foothill ExpreSSways prOGeed iMmediately. We appreciate the opportunity to pro .... ide t.hese ccm:r.ents for your consideration, and 'Wish you well on this important planning effort for Santa Clara county. JS:OI::!. cc: city Council sincerely, ~~~ /-/i/:CK SUTORIUS L--/' ~Layor Lawrence Reuter I Director, Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Dawn s. Cameron I T2010 pr-oject ~anager Barbara Tryon, Chairperson~ Santa Clara cour.ty Transportation Commission I I I I r OF'IGt OF" ri'O~ "' ... .,.Q~ f.~$1 3~~-2::l6'" ATIACHMENT 2 City of )'010 )=ltto <5, .::. e.c.>: IC:.;!~O I'>"'L~ ",I.:~O,:::" ~ ... ~C3 October 21, 1991 supervisor Dianne McKer.na chairperson,. Santa Clara Coun'ty Board of Supervisors County Government Cgnter 10th Floor,. East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 £~ Dear Supervisor ~~ -----I\s you know, Palo Alto is a strong supporter of calTrain. The city council recommended that the T2010 Plan include, as a top priority, the upgrade of the CalTrain syste~ according to the CalTrain Short Range Transit Plan~ Palo Alto is not alone in this z'egard. At the september 5th Government officials t Wo:rkshop, consensus vas expressed that T2010 should include increased support for CalTrain. The revised T2010 Plan adopted by the ~2010 OVersight Committee on October 9th has, 'n our opinion, taken a major step backwards in this regard.IIThe ~aj~rity oE future CalTrain iDprove~ants have now been moved fr"Om Tier 1 to Tier 2. The Cal Train i:mprov!9ll'..ents left in Tier 1 fall far short of CalTrain's Short Rarlge Transit Plan. Major upgrading of CalTrain would now have to compete 'With seven Tier 2 light rail projects, SOIDe of 'Which have been only prelitl'.inarily studied. In T2000. CalTrain .;as a top priority. with no aspect of it cor:sider:ed in a secondary category. The T2010 Plan purports to maintain the same rail priorities as T2000, but. with regard to CalTrain, it no longer appears to do so. ~1 calTrain deserves bett~r. It is an existing, proven system. Despite I( many operational constraints, ridership continues to gro~. The u.s. I 101 Corridor i6 the most congeste~ in the County, and T2000 shows LI that CalTrain is the :most cost-effective rail alternative in the County. The California Trar.sportation Commission's recent release of funds to purchase the CalTrain right-of-~ay provides a great boost for CalTrain's future. Santa Clara County's strong support for cal Train is needed now to help expedite the major 5ervice improvements desired by Santa Clara County commuters. L o Supe.rvisor Dianne Mc"Kenna October 21, 1991 Page .2: We urge the Board of superv ... sors to keep the Cal Train system, and the program of ~ajor upgrades, entirely in Tier 1 of the Rail Corridor Priorities 20-Year Plan. Thank you for this opport~nity to prDvide these additional COrnDents on the TZ010 Plan. S incer-ely, cs cc: City Council - Dawn S. Cameron, T2010 Project Manager Barbara Tryon, Chairperson, Santa Clara County Tcansportation Commission , , I , Tier Oll"ric:br 1a Ta5man •• Fremont-San Jose ** ---.---~~---~- T2010 PAIL WllUra! PRICJUTlES -20 YOM l'U\N (APPROVlm BY THE 'l'RANSIT D)S'CRICT ilOARD ON OCTOBER 29.1991) Est. CBpital CDst * (1990 $ millions) Next Ste(l Pre11lll. EngC .jPP!IS AA,lDEIS PobmUel~_ l\il.l i\l!'dir>g 1\g,,,,,,,,,nt select Preferred Alternative 101j13ooth =ty (ca1Wain) 340-360 SOO-1700 200-250'" purchase \01; ca.plete t.1pg<ades necessa'Y fur IlpgracleQ SysteJII in Place 1b v.sana 2 (Nat in priority order) 175-195 a 1'!\i.ni.Itrn\ of 66 daily trains and Giltoy service Prelim. El1gr .,lFCR Decision to cansttuc: .. ~ lOl;sooth County (calT<oin) 400--450 15-25 260-310 360-540 130-150 320-460 90-100 Develop [o'inancial Plan D3CisiCK) to F\lrther Dq:HOO SetVice Almaden--Upgrade Existing Branch Capi tol,lD:'J.«l.tCMl-E\Jergreen De M:l;J. SoUth San Jose stevens Creek,/1Uull nock 'l'a"""" ~etioo-SuMyvale 1"9 'J.Oll>,[. ~2.B-4.6 billion Planning;IlEll\ P1aMing;IlEll\ Preliminary Sb.rly Ptelimina'Y Stooy Prel.i)ninary 5tWy prelim. fllg< .j\'EIS .Advance to Prel.i.rn. El1gr ./FUn ~ce to prelim. Engr./YE!R .Advance to Plaru)il'lg/DOR St.aga hivanca to PlaMingtDEIR Sta~ NW~lce to Plarmincy!lEIR Stage Decision to Construct * capital costs are msed 00 rrost recent planning sb..rlies or fran ~['king paper '3 (Evaluation of Draft Ialq Ran!]e R3il Flao.). 'I.he. Ft:etror\t-Sat\ .lese COCI:idot cost ieflectE. the ran<je of options still t.nler CCl'lSideratim. Capital costs have not been refined in te[lllS of systenwide reqv.irerrents an:j shccl.d be cmsidered as preliminary estimltes. .... 'ltte Frennnt-san Jose corridor am the Tasman COrridor 'Wece part of the odgiMl Frell'l)'}t-sooth Bay Corcidm iUrl co--equal rn.,mt)et' cr\e priociti@s with the 101 Corridor in TlOOO. j *** P4!flects p;>rti<n of cost within santa. clara CCUlty am i1lclu::1es State, Federal arrl local fun:ls. i..<X:al sccro fun:ls I ace designated for the Gllr"" and Tamien Extens!oos, statico upgr_s, and ope<at!ng IiUbsidies. --... --' , ---:r ------•• ~.-~' .... -------.~,~:-~ .. '-----------.-~ "" .. 1''''1IF--- " , .'. \C o i-~ -\. :t> ~ :t> o I s::: rn ~ V) , . \ .0 I ,,,., ' ~ " , »' . " :"~i'i ~[''f '-. .(~. -~', .( ':~~~:~_ \ ~": ~ 'J, I • '. I" ---... r-: .,::C:::t.. '-\ f "", L ) L'~·) .;' T2010 RAIL CORRIDOR PRIORITIES (20 Yoar Plan) _ Tler'1 I 'Tle,2 .. .... ------,--~~---". -~.~--------- SANTA CLARA COUNTY ~ .,":.:....~:.- \} J,J" . " ',0' \.'_ r '. / -1'1' ,.,,, ;'i~/ .. ( .. '.:'" ',' ', . .' j > ~ o I ~ rn z -l .j>. I -' ;',:;--'<'. :',',;,t,,\! ''''', " ,_~,,~:~t!t~'fJ .. ~~:t-;--\-, '~'·,:Ji'L'f·~i.';' ~> ,¥'t~.;~"",-'(: ' ' r .J ~, - RAtiKJ~OF T;:E R 1 &, TlER 2 RAIL CORp..tQORS PER-TOTP,L SCORES FROM T20tO OVERSIGHT COMHlTTcE PPIO~ITIZAT:iON MATRIX ATIACHMENT 5 To: Transportation Commission From: Dave Fadnes5. Dare: 1/8/92 Tl'Ie forio ..... ing table owtl~nes the reswlts of T2010 Overstght COI"nr:litte€ pr;cr:t;­ lation work. FGCtnot~s on At,acliment A of st2ff's 1/3/92 t:c.nsmitta~ a;J,:ly. RANK TOTAL SCC:"=:E CORP.:OOR If Wt:! lnsist thet the odsinal tiers C,;:, rnalntali.ed C8spitc tr,;se ,~SJlts, !l"~ fotlow~n9 priorit~zed itst waul d result: TIER 1 SCOeE -1--RA~.,·K ____ ~ cS'.;;:::;roop. ~ I t SOU 504_3 2 502.2 _I _ -+---"---1--'-; CI~/SOLJ_Il:::L-.COUNTY CA,L T F:A~N : '-_""~'--+ __ "£ __ ..L ___ -,F:2R:::c,E~MOi:! T -SAN JQS E I -''--_+ _____ -'~.:,~"~'''~"A,,, ~'-: ___-{ 336.5 I 558.3 _§l~ .. 3 505.6 432.3 473.8 3 • 1 2 3 _--.£--- 5 STt;:VENS CREEK/ALUH POCK I CAPITOL ----1 10t/SOU~COUNT __ !, CAL TRAIO TASMAN COMPlE..!~ _, OOWNTQI,O/N/EVERGREEN 444.7 6 (--'~~-+_-~-_-ll SOUTH SAN JOSE 400.2 7 OEANlA 337.0 8 ___ ~ __ ~ ______ ~A~L£MAOEN UPGR~A~D~E~ ____ ~ Unfortunately, we did nut evaluate the ~Tier 3'" proje:ts. L '.". . -,.;~ - --." r--~nACHMENT 6 T2010 CP.RONOLOGY MIL:!:STONES REGARDING RAIL PRI·)RITIES July l1J_l! Final Draft T2:01C Plan co:r.:pleted. Contained proposed rail corridor priorities. s~pte!!lJ;!_tl ____ ~_2_1: In CMR:41S:91 (September 5), staff recommended that Council endorse the T201C Plan, , .. ith a fe .... specific addttional recomnendations. Primary among these we::-e recommenda.tions that T2010 place strong err.phasis on CalTrain improvements from Sa!1 Francisco to Gilroy (U.S. 101 corrido::-). (T2010 proposed that CalTrain improve:ments all be in "Tier ln of rail priorities, but was unclear about what speci fie improvements ·",'ere ir,cluded.) Council's recomrrtendations ",ere cor.veyed. to supe,rvisor Dianne McKenna in a September 16 letter from Hayor sutorius. Qi::tober 9. 1991: T2010 Oversight Committee formally adopted the T2:010 Plan, but made significant changes to the rail priorities by moving the majority of Cal Train improvements from Tier lA to Tier 2, and lowering priority of the Vasona corridor from Tier 1A to Tier lB. OC~.9;!::1_~_r 21, t~5Lt: At staff's suggestion, Mayor $utorius sent a letter to Supervi sor McKenna urging the Board of Superviso~s to adopt the rail priorities as stated before the Oversight Committee made changes. october 23 1991: Sa!'lta Cle.ra county Tra.nsportation commission voted to restore all Cal Train projects to Tier lAo October 29. 1991: Transit District Board adopted the final T2010 Plan as recc:rn....'"!'lended on October 9 b;l the Oversight Committee. pecember 1991-January. 1992: OVersight conu~ittee decided on Tier 2 rail priol'ities. OVersight Comoittee also ranY.ed all rai 1 projects according to performance criteria. Jan~~ __ n' 1~9_~: Transportatie,n Corrur.i.ssiofl decidt?d on Tier 2 priorities at -c.he January 8 meetirJg. Det.·ails .... ·ere transmitted to the Transit District Board in a Ja::-:uary 13 memorandum. February 11. 1992: Transit District Board directed that a public :hearinq be held to amend T2010 rail priorities, and forn-.ally adopt the T2010 plan, vith rail priority amendments. March 5, 1992: North santa Clara county Elected Officials Workshop on CalTrain \lias held. Tnis .... orkshop ""as entirely independent of and unrelated to the Transit District Board' s actions on rail priorities. March 11 '992: Scheduled Transportat ion co~mission meeting to consider the Board' s changes to rail pr:i.orities~ Transportation Commission will consider input from Santa Clara County cities. March 24. 1992_: Sche_duled Trar'lsit District Board public hearing on T2010, at which time it ~ill consider formal adoption of the T2010 Plan as the Transit District General Transit Plan, with changed rail priorties . -<i!~~ e;ie . - ., c I I l ! I I I 1 I I II .fi'-..... . ___ t;:.i:'--.-:., ____ ~--.. -"'-....- .An ~,gency ollh~ county o( Sanla CJara PC, 80x £ r 1 SOC. 5311 Jcse CA 95 r6 '·1 ~CJ L l'!i!'!ClF,,e.NDUH --------------ATIACHMENT 7 TO: Barbara Tr-yon, Chair l'r.8nsportation Corr.~issio_'l FROH, 11tarry Reuter, Dir.«or SUBJECT: T2010 Rail Pdorities February 12, 1992 Although (he. District Eoard cf Supervisors trc.cop~E'd·' the Sar.~a Cl;s.ra. C,:J1..Jilty Transportation Plan --12010 on October 29, 1991 r the Board cid nQt spec.ifically adopt tha.t 'plan 25 [he DistLict Gene:al Transit Plan. In oreer to adopt '12010 as the Distr-ict General Transit Plan, the BOd!"d is noticing a public heaLing on that matter fvr March 2'. 1992. The lloard is c.onsidering the amendment of the proposed plan, as it ''''as originally transmitted to the Eoard by the Tra~spottat10n CQ~~ission (i.e., the July 1991 Draft Final Plan as Tllodifjed by that docuir.en! entitled IPFit'lal ~ approved by tho::!: Board 'Jf Supervisors on Oc["be .... 29, 1991"). The Eoard, at its Ma~ch 24 h~aring, ~i11 conSld~r in general the repriorith:ation of thos'i! "T2'J1D Rail Cocridor Ftio:-ities" set forth as 'rables 1 and 8 af the Final nan. Tr.e Eoa~d \{iU COr.Si~H all of the rail corridor priorities, and ~ill particularly consider revising Tables 1 and 8 as attached. These Tables I"Efle-:t three changes: 1) T~(: move~ent of the CapitollEvH6"reen Corridor [am Tier 2 to lier 1; 2) Mo~'ir..-: se\'eral lOllSouth County C'.i.lTrain projec.ts originally :lnclUced in Tier 2 in to !he Tier 1 lOl/South County CalTrain program, as des~ribed in the third footnote at the bottom of the Table; and 3) the re-ordering of the r~::laini!'1g Tier 2 projects to refle~t the Tier 2 priority recommer.dations of the TranspDrtation Co~ission as cont&ined in your January 13. 1992 Trans~itral to the Transit District Eoard. ThE Board at its February ll~ 1992 rr.eeting-, refern:': {his rr.atte.r to the Tra:'lsponatio:l Commission ror the CommlssiOI1's r .. port on the propo$ed cha"ge to the Final Planrs Rail Corridor Priorities. Th~ Eoard requested that the Commissionrs rEport be filed ~ith the Board not ]ete~ t~an Harch 23, 1992. The Board is~ of course, a .. are that the Commission n';'5 a1rear!y a';bized the Board of its preferences regarding rail cor-ridor priority, and that the report no,.,. requested may simply reiterate that earlier advice. Ho· ... ev~r, the !oatd's formal r-eference to the Commission for a further ftreport" is in compliance vi th California la;.-regarding the adoption of lin a.r:tE-~clmen t to a proposed general transit plan. Under California la·.·. if the CO:'Jmission coes not file a report by March 23, D92, the Cornmlssion \"ill be deerr::ed to have .appro,,·ed of the Board's modification of the rail conidor priorities. LR:JEP:ai Attachment . , ,l ~: \ I ;;;l l:T iii ,.... '" (AS Tier--Corridor Tasman Fremom-San Jose T2010 RAIL CORRIDOR PRIORITIES 20 YEAR PLAN iU':VISEP BY THE 'rMNSIT IH STRICT HOARI) UN FI':BIWARY Eslinlnlcd Copllnl Cost (1090 $ miliions) NCXlSICP Prelim. Engr,/P'EIS AAlDErs 11.1992) POlen!i"I OUlCome- Full Punding: Agreement ,sI:ICCl ptcrt".m"1..1 AIICma!h'c 101/Soulh County (CaITrain) 340-360 500-1700 ...... 200-250" Complete uPl:rlldes r(lf 66 trilins oml Gilroy; Develop plnn rOt hi/JhCI Scrllcc level"· Upgraded System in Place.; I j Commilme'lt lind finBncial pia" for service cJlp.lnsion ~ V<lson<l Capitol/Downtown-Evcrgn:(,n 2 Stevens Crc('k/Alulll Rock tol/Soulh County (Currmin) T:lsmnn Complclion- SunnYVilk/CupCl1il1[J !c~ SrU.IIh_San Jose DcAlll_iI Almmlcn·Upgrade Ex.is(inI; riranch NOTES: 175·195 260-310 :120·4IUJ 2()()·JfX)·· 0{j·]OO IJO·ISO Plclimin .. ry Engr, Occision to Construct Piilnninr/DEIR Advance to Prelim. EnJ;t./FE!R Prl!liminary'study Advanc~ 10 Plilnnin!VDEIR Stage Develop ExlCn:-;Lon Plan Dcci!>ion 10 EXIcnd Servicc I'ldim, En!.:rjr<f~l.s D:.'I'islOJlIO Ctmslmct Jirclilllinnry Study Advnncc 10 PlimningIDE1R Siage Prcliminilrv Slllilv Allvnncc 10 PlilnlliJ\[iDEIR SI;l~.C PEIIVi'rclil, l)Cd~ion 10 COn5It\lct • Projecls wilhin (,_Il"!! lier will he udvonc('cilfllhc next I)1r:[1 h;l.~cll on Ilrojcd rl~Hdin~ss 111111 c1igihllilY fOf {1IJ'ulinr. (_IIIc-&ori~s. All prnj{'-cI.~ ulIIltl tlunlil'y fm Simo IIIU[ Pcdcml I1cxihlc IIlld lIansil fLlll(I.~, III MII!llion, CIIITrl~1IL 1I1l111hc Almlllicli L'PI~rndc lira IILI~ Ilnly projCCt~ which (Ire c.llgihlc {qr fiCtkrnl Rnil Mod~rllizilijoll f,ultls, () ~ ..J.. s: m Z I --i I <Xl ) •• nericcts portion or cosl within Snntn CI:rm C'mmty IIlId jnchllk~ pmenlial flll\d_~ {tllill Stille, Pcdcral and loc,ll Sllurc('s, I ••• 'rhe cunclllly·fLlndcd portiOIl inehuk.~ 6G {I/Iily ImillS., Ii nf which .'iCfVt. IIII~ Oilm)' E~((,ll.'lIon. 'rhr. rcmllinilll: IlfI/:rmlcs includo liile ~lcclrificn:·~nn; the . I II Stlrl Jo~e. Multi,"od;i1 S\llli,lrl (!;I(I~C.~ '2 ,'k )); n~u!ri\lizcrllr"rrIC c.r)f](rnl; !lew mllllLg stor.k; nnd fLIIlhc.r !\C)lIlh County im[Hflv{'.mclII~. I ~ --~._~._--.,.-. r'-... · ______ T_ • -~ __ .~ .. ____ ~r' _V" ~...,.~ __ ~. ____ ~_;~." ~_-..-.. q" '0' _ --.... "'< •• o, •• ;/",II;[.r-... ;~'2~'_"~'...r.-,--;.'~~~~~ ",,:.,. ,-" .. , ............ L'