Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 05/10/2001 (2)
• ttAAf'' t MAY 0 7 2001 1 .9 ■ • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION. AUTHORITY SCTA MEETING • AGENDA PACKET Monday, April 9, 2001 3:15 p.m. • • Permit=and Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue • Planning'Commission Hearing Room Santa Rosa, California • • a • ■ • • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AGENDA April 9, 2001 3:15 p.m. • Permit and.Resource Management Department 2550 Ventura Avenue Planning Commission Hearing Room Santa Rosa;California Directors ITEM • • Mike Kent;Chak 1. Public Comment Soxwx Cowin Robert John;V.Chair 'It. Consent Items -.ACTION` "" "° A. Minutes of the March 5, 2001 Meeting Joe Castello B. Minutes of thee.November 1-3, 2000 Meeting So Geoffrey Fax • Reports - INFORMATION/ACTION • -- ce - . Mark Gleason - A. Executive Committee Report (Chair Kems) B. NCRA Report(Director Mackenzie) Mike Meaty C. SCTA Staff Report(Suzanne Wilford, Executive Director) . • Peiruw 1. MTC Activities wry 2. CAC Report Jake Mackenzie 3. TAC Repoli Aenxw Pum 4. Caltrans,Report Larry Robinson seeuronx IV. FY2001/2002.TFCAProgram of Projects — DISCUSSION/ACTION Sam Salmon A. Staff Report. w,.e>en B. Resolution No. 2001-002 Tim Smith - - Scoot*Cairn Sharon Might V. FY2001/2002.Coordinated Claim for Transit,—DISCUSSION/ACTION •A� A. Staff Report B. Resolution No. 2001-003 VI. FY2001/2002 TDA Article 3 Program for Bicycles — DISCUSSION/ACTION A. Staff Report B. Resolution No. 2001-004 VII. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Funds, Cycle Two — DISCUSSION/ACTION A. Staff Report B. • Resolution No. 2001-005 SCTA Staff • Suzanne Wilford VIII. SCTA Ad-Hoc>Committee Report— DISCUSSION/ACTION cxaevme Dinecw ;Janet spnmgn PL IX. . 2001-Regional Transportation Plan —DISCUSSION/ACTION wwarommax wx[n Jeanette Wood A. Overview by Metropolitan Transportation.Commission B. Role of SCTA in outreach and project,develdpment „�eee oA.ex a C. Regional Transit Expansion Agreement s s Roe A05a0, D. Schedule PH: 707 565-5373 FAX 707.565 5370 • • • • • SCTA Agenda O. • April9,2001 . • Page 2 of 2 X. PUBLIC HEARING-2001 Countywide Transportation Plan – DISCUSSION/ACTION • k Staff Report B. Technical Advisory Committee Project List Recommendation C. Public Comment• • , • D. Next Steps / Schedule XI. GARVEE Bonds– DISCUSSION/ACTION . A. Staff Report- - - B. Project Study Report_issues C. Project Manager Request for Qualifications* - - XII. .Project Delivery Update – DISCUSSION . XIII. FTA Section 5310 Paratransit Projects–DISCUSSION• XIV. Other-Business/Director Announcements--DISCUSSION XV. Adjourn–ACTION • The next SCTA meeting will be held: May 14, 2001. Additionalvinformation will be distributed at the meeting • . • • . - • • — _ • • • ti • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • ••, • • . . _ . . . . o • • SONOMA• COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY . . • - . MINUTES.. ' • . • MARCH 5, 2001 I • , • ATTENDEES ' ,w Director Kerns Director Mackenzie Director Costello " . • Director Robinson ' ' Director Shaffner, ' DirectorSmith Director : . ' ' DirectorWright - • - , Director Kelley . Chair Kems called the meeting to order. . - • ITEM I. Public Comment Mr. Fred Levine introduced himself to the Authority as the new Executive Director of the,Sonoma County • Taxpayers Association. •He;stated that the Taxpayers_Association will be following the SCTA with interest, _ . 'as transportation is one of the most important elements affecting'the taxpayers. In regards to the Express ' • Bus Study he would like to see the possibility of a guided bus rail system added to the scope of work. Mr. Robert Tanner, citizen, introduce himself and stated that he has been dealing'with transportation for several years. He has been talking with.Caltrans and will meet with Paul Chu in the future to discuss new ' traffic lights for local state highways. - II. Consent Item • A. Minutes of the November13, 2000 Meeting - . Were distributed at the.meeting for review and will be re-agendized at the April meeting. B. Minutes of the January 22 2001 Meeting . Director Mackenzie motioned to approve the minutes as written. Director Wright seconded the motion and the minutes were-approved unanimously. III. Reports . A. Executive Committee Report Chair Kerns stated thatthe Executive Committee had met and discussed the Subcommittee meeting held last month and'SCTA Goal Setting. The Executive Committee will develop the goals based on the Vision 2020 Plan and the`Countywide Transportation Plan. . • B. NCRA Report Director Mackenzie stated that recently freight service had started on the Northwestern Pacific line and ' currently runs up to Petaluma. In the next couple of months that service will extend into Santa Rosa once the next segment,of the track is cleared for operation. 5 • • C. SCTA Staff Report - Suzanne Wilford gave an update on all reports. . . • 1. MTC Activities Staff will'be_participating in theannual MTC;lobbying trip,for the:region.held in Washington DC March 11-14. Director Wright will also be!attending,representing MT.C:as a,Commissioner. • • MTC,has had some new appointments to'upper management. Steve l-leminger is now the. Executive Director; Therese McMillan was promoted to their Deputy Director of Policy. ,Ann'Flemer is•now the Deputy Director of Operations. Dianne•Steinhauser has been hired:as,their Manager of Programming and Allocations: Randy Rentschler will be the Manager of Legislation and:Public- Affairs. Melanie Croty will be the Manager of Transit Coordination and Access. • 2. CAC Report The Citizen's Advisory Committee met,on February 5th 8:26"'. The-primary items of discussion were'future sales tax measures and the Countywide Transportation.Plan. They also discussed some transitissues'and the TDA Article 3-Bike List. The next CAC meeting;will'be March 26, 2001. <;x s ' - 3... TAC Report • The Technical.Advisory‘Committee met,in.JanuaryiarTd fiebru-SN: They discussed:the.Countywide • Transportation Plan.. They also;had a daylong meeting on March'2'd regarding the Countywide Transportation Plan where they developed a draft priority list of projects: This list will;be brought • before:the Authority in April. The next meetingwill'.be March 29,.2001. . 4. Caltrans Report • Jonathan Lee, Design Senior for Caltrans, gavean'update on all'Caltraris projects. • • A. Wilfred Avenue to Route 12 - The bidlopening was:January 31t.and the low bidder was OC Jones. The contract was • . awarded March 1'. The next step:is to-get the contract and signed'by Caltrans and the contractor,which could take•a couple of weeks.'The contractor has fifteen`days after the contract is approved:to start construction. Caltrans is in-the process-With SCTA staff of setting up a groundbreaking ceremony,which is,tentatively,scheduled for late;March. • B. Route 12 to'Steele•Lane, Caltrans'isi meet ng.monthly' with•thesCity'of'Santa Rosa and City Vision. At the next meeting on March 6d'lthey will discuss the aesthetics of the structures and the sdundwalls. • • C. Marin!Sonoma•Narrows. Marin/Sonoma.Narrows PdlicyAdvisory Group did,not'meet,in February. .At,the next meeting Caltrans will be presenting some mapping showing the access points on the 101 in the midsection that currently does not meet freeway standards. This will show how many parcels will be.impacted and where frontage roads need'to'be. This is tbe;firstbroad'look at how access will be impacted. The next meeting is March 5°i, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. at-the:Novato City. Council Chambers. • D: Route 1.16,East Project Old<Redwood Highway The,PSR is scheduled to be complete in July of this year. �n E. Petaluma Auxiliary Lane Caltrans will begin the environmental work soon. Construction is currently set for the 2003/04 fiscal year. 5. SMART Report • Ms. Wilford statedthahthe SMART Commission''metin:Februairy. The primary issue of discussion was the request.for proposals for the environmental firm and the engineering firm • thatwillbe hired'tor do the preliminary work on the rail line. A subcommittee of SMART was created-to review the RFPs: The scope of work is currently in development The goal is to do a full EIR/EIS in order to meet the requirements for-federatfunding. The next meeting will be • March 21st at-2 p.m..in Petaluma. . • IV. •Regional Express Bus Study Proposal Ms. Wilford stated that this item was before the Authority in January. The County of Mann Congestion - - • Management Agency submitteda∎letter requesting participation on the part of Sonoma County in a Regional Express Bus Study., John Loll,Mann County Transit Manager was invited to give a presentation of the proposal and scope of work. Mr. Loll stated that the County of Mann is involved in regional transportation efforts and is attempting to do work press Bus.Study. Mann County's Congestion.Management Agency(CMA)has developed a scope of w • poking at inter_county bus'ser ice between Sonoma'and Marin Counties. MTC agreed to participate • and contribute $60,000 to the'effort.. In addition, Marin's CMA is contributing $20;000. The Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Transit District(GGBHTD)also agreed to participate and contribute$20,000. The exact amount of the study,;is;notyet',known but a preliminary estimate is $100;000: He stated that Sonoma's • contribution if they chose to participate would be$20,000 as well and'perhaps the local jurisdictions could contribute towards that. Originally"the study was projected'ata higher dollar amount and included a broader scope of work. The'scope;has been:narrowed in the interest of bringing the costs down to make the completion of the study more affordable. • Director Kelley asked who'l.ihe:op"erator,would.be if an express bus service was created. He also stated that there are capital funds available but questioned where the operating funds would come from for this service. 'Mr. Loll stated that the operator hadinot,yet•_6een determined and that it will be looked at in the scope of the study: The governor provided capital funds but did not earmark funds'for operating costs. The study will help look at other sources of revenue such as subscription bus service'to'fu'nd the operating costs. - Director Kelleystated that the GGBHTD already operates an express bus.servicein:Sonoma County. •Mr. Loll stated that GGBHTD service runs mainly to San.Ftancisco:and its service between Sonoma and Marin Counties is very limited. Director Healy asked what the timeframe for the.govemoi's funding Was: - Mr. Loll stated that MTC's.deadline for the call for projects is April 30. The study could be used to help draft a responseto the governors call for projects. Director Healy asked what the shelf life was for this type of-study. • • Mr. Loll stated that it would have an extended shelf life of at least2-3iyears after its completion. • Bryan Albee,Sonoma'County Transit Manager, expressed his concern regarding MTC's;portion of the • program. There is about$250,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA)funds,which•would be diverted to help out with the Regional Express Bus Program If they were to propose a project for the program they would compete for a:bus'and only be able to'get 12% of the operating costs from MTC In order to get back that $250,000 they would have to introduce over$2 million dollars of•service, which'is:not possible for them. The greater•need for them is meeting the ADA paratransit,requirements. MTC hasiagreed to meet with Sonoma County's operators after the applications:are.turned'in to:determine if Sonoma.County's money will really be needed;in this program. He wanted to recognize that GGBHTD already provides service from Sonoma.to Marinandthat 25% of Sonoma County's TDA funds each year go to GGBHTD. He also mentionedthat the study is already fundetl,to the $100,000 level with the$60,000 from MTC•and the $20,000 from Mann County and.the GGBHTD. Chair Kerns asked if there might besome value to Sonoma County operators forthe info this study.would provide. . . • Mr. Albee`stated that there would bevalue'to what the consultants may find as enhancements•to the current . . . service but that there are currently no:funds to operate this type of service and itcould slow down their efforts to dohigher priority projects. Bob Dunlavey, Santa Rosa Transit Manager; stated that he shared Mr. Albee's concerns. Sonoma County's operators are'facedl.with a difficult situation. For a number ofyearsdhe'STA funds;for Sonoma County have gone to:paratransitt This past year MTC;;has decided through the state's'augmentation of those STA funds to:make them available for Regional Express Bus Service. Currently Sonoma County puts -out'in.excess•of$4mllion annually to,GGBHTD to,provide that;.intercounty service. There is very little money available for paratransit service: The trarisifoperators are hoping to enhance the paratransit service: • through the augmentation of STA funds,which is dearly needed throughout the county. In regards to the express bus study scope of work, 12-of the 17`••elements;relate directly to the application,for'express bus service MTC that MThas put out. With Sonoma County's,growing population and'new businesses the intra • county service should be addressed first. • Len Swenson, citizen, stated that he believed Santa Rosa;and Petaluma should be apart of this study in order to-integrate all of their services.. Joel Woodhull, citizen, suggested looking atcuejumper lanes to promote the bus service in thestudy's scope of work. Mr. Lollstafed'thatthe study is a long-term look:atthe'transit situation and may help?answer ballot questions for a future tax measure.'He would like to see;staff participate in the technical advisory committee with this study effort to keep continuity between thetwo counties. Chair Kerns asked staff what options are available to provide Sonoma County's $20,000 share of the study's cost. . • Ms. Wilford stated that there are four possible options. The way the SCTA currently funds studies is based on a:population,road/mile formula where the cost is split between the nine cities and the county. Other ways include seeking contributions directly fromthe transit agencies,full funding from:the county or the use of SCTA reserves. There is no current funding,available in the SCTA budget other than reserves. Director Wright stated that this topic Was•discussed at the MTC meeting,of which she is a commissioner: She stated that there were three commissioners"thatopposed the express bus concept because their counties could not participate in itbased on the criteria'thathas,been established. A letter from•Sonoma, Napa and Solano counties to the'Executive Director of MTC asking no work Wit •staff. • • Director W rightmotioned that Sonoma County not participatein the Regional Express Bus Study on.a. • finanbialbasis but to provide,technical assistance through our-staff. Director'Kelleyseconded the motion and it passed,unanimously. Director Healy stated that until there are HOV lanes there is no advantage in taking an express.bus. • • • • • • • • V. Congestion Mitigation/Alr Quality Match Program Ms. Wilford stated that the CMAQ/Match program isessentially'STIP funds that MTC has earmarked foa Match programtorprojects that are eligible for CMAQ AQ'money; which is a federal funding source. Last year the SCTA has programmed CMAQ funds through the Cycle II process. There are four • projects currently eligible to receive CMAQ/Match'funds. The'CTC-prohibits a match of greater than 1,1.5%. The TAG has recommended these projects for funding. Director Kelley motioned to approve the four projects recommended by the TAC for CMAQ/Match funding. Director Wright seconded:the,motion.and the recommendation was approved unanimously. . • • • VI. SCTA Sub-Committee Report.. • . Ms.Wilford"discussed each'topic: • - A. Report from the Chair • • . At the last SCTA meeting in January Chair Kems appointed five members of the SCTAto a subcommittee to look at future opportunities to fund transportation. The subcommittee met in February and discussed what has been done in the:past, what some of the options are in terms of a,sales.tax , • • measure. Theydecidedto Invite:a professional facilitator to participate;with the.subcommittee and • •• ., __ further public.outreach'to:explore future transportation funding. Chair Kerns stated that the committee discussed possible scenarios for the future. There was a consensus to develop:a;process to bring representatives from:all the interested groups together to form, a coalition to discuss:transportation.funding. • B. Report on Programming of Future STIP Cycles • • At the last-SCTA meeting Director Wright mentioned that she asked the MTC staff to look into GARVEE bonds. GARVEE stands,for Grant Anticipation Revenue.Vehiclei The bonds:are repaid with future federal highway funds. Those funds are derived from the'STIP, which is gas tax money. The bonds are,guaranteed with thefuture STIP cycle monies. The GARVEE Bonds are issued by the-State • Treasurer at the request;of the CTC: The SCTA has the authority to request the bonds be issued as • Part of the process-of programming STIP funds. TFie,SCTAwould'have to:pass a.resolution requesting' that the CTC consider issuing GARVEE Bonds for a particular project for a particular amount. The bonds can only be used for construction costs and the project Must be eligiblefor the STIP, it must have environmental clearance•and completed projectdesign"and+itmust meet all federal requirements meaning;doing•environmental impact review at the federalandfstatellevel. The preliminary estimates indicate that-the SCTA could bond for$100 million. The capital costs related to widening segments of the 101 would be eligible. • • Director Robinson'asked if the bonds could be used for SMART. Ms. Wilford stated that the projects must be STIP eligible and.sorhe elements of transit may not be funded with,gas tax-money. Staff will provide greater detail of:thatat'dhe April meeting. • Ms. Wilfordstated that if this is something the SCTA is interested in pursuing there area few preliminary things that staff needs to prepare and bring back to'the SCTA in April. Staff would need to work with the CTC and MTC on the funding elements:and work with Caltranson the deliverability issues,which would•bea'considerable increase'in,workload. The SCTA would also have to determine ' ' what projects to bond for and do'the preliminary work to get the projects ready for construction. • • • 9 Ms-Wilford;referred'to`the following table. • Priority Project Segment Status . 1 Wilfred to Highway 12 Funded -2 Highway 12 to Steele Lane • Funded • 3 RP Expressway to Wilfred Avenue •- EIR/Desigm= . . ' 4 • Steele Lane to Windsor River Road Need PSR 5. Old RedwoodSto.RP Expressway Need PSR - 6 Marin/Sonoma$arrows: ' EIR/EIS' . There:are:two segments on the 10.1 that have no'money.programmedto them. They are#4 - north of "Steele:Lane to Windsor River.Road and#5-Old Redwood l-hghway'to Rohnert Park,Expressway- The • 2002;STIP is coming,up;at the end.of=this year.- Staffcwill be.getting•a fund estimate in early fall- - Preliminary'estimate show.thatithe STIP could tie between•$30.-$40'Million;which theSCTA can program at the end of the year and the CTC would finalize in June 2002. - Segments 4 &5.need to have. "Project Study,Reports (PSR)done before they will be'eligit le;forthe ` _ • STIP. Historically the SCTAhas,requested.Caltrans to do the-PSRs because the SCTA has not had the funding to do them:. With $270;000 from MTC and $50;000'from the SCTA, the SCTA,cotild'oversee the,development of those PSRs. The CTC recommended contracting out for the PSR work•if'Caltrans does not have the resources to do it. It could about`8 months to complete a.PSR. If,the PSRs • were'ready the SCTA would be:able to program;the 2002•STIP money for the environmental and design ' • and have those projects ready for construction:by 2005,-When programming:for the 2002 STIP, the SCTA will let the CTC'know that,they anticipate requesting GARVEE Bonds in 2005 for construction. The CTC would note that and would be prepared to issuebonds at that juncture. Once the environmental document is approved and the project is;engineered;C TC will issue the bonds and • •construction can begin.in 2005: • Director Wrightstated.that this process has not been done in-Califomia•before. There have been six other,states that have done this MTC &the CTC would like to see this,program work. The state will - set a limit once theyget•the firstwrequest.. Some of the advantages of being the first county.to,applyare that those limits would not be hit and that county could bea part of thepolicy making process: • Chair Kern stated that bonds would have first call for repayment out of the STIP and this guarantees a level of funding•forSonoma County. Director-Healy stated that GARVEE Bonds are only one.type of funding mechanism for transportation but thathis community may be'nervouS about giving up.severalyears of STIP money to projects north of Petaluma, - . . Director Kelley supported the use of,GARVEE'Bonds. He recommended thatstaff work with the • Executive Committee to help-answer someof the questions regarding GARVEE.Bonds. Director Smith.also supported the,use of GARVEE Bonds. He wasexcited that:projects could.be completed;sooner and-esç5ecially sincethis guarantees that Sonoma County is getting its share of SlIP money. • . Chair Kerns directed staff to continue working with.the,CTC on this issue andto.bring it back to the April agenda:.'He also stated that the ExecutiveCommitteercould bethe steering committee for this work: Director Wright asked if MTC-would need a resolution from the SCTA approving their'portion of.the • PSR-costs. . Ms.Wilford.'stated'that staff will`prepareia'resolution for that • Bryant Moynihan requested that staff prepare a cost analysis of bonding compared to not bonding: He priority g ect pnonty and do work on projects that already have the PSR done: I� also su Bested changing the prof Ms. Wilford stated`that the^completion of an environmental document and design needs to be met before bonds can.be issued. If the'SCTA were to pursue the PSRs and environmental & design for segments'#4•and #5 then all;of,the-segments of the 101 would be eligible for construction.funds. C. Request from Caltrans for Project Study Report List .. Staff will submit to Caltrans that'the SCTA is looking to•do PSRs for those two segments and request that'Caltrans reserve resources for oversight because they still:need'to'be a participant even though the ' • SCTA will be'doing theveports. - • ' VII. Other Business/Director Announcements - t - . • There was no other business: - - ' - • • VIII. Adjourn - - • The meeting was adjourhedapproximately at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitt/ems/d, Q • Jeanette Wood - - Executive-Assistant - • . , • - . 1 � • • • 12 ' ' _ _ . • • • ..._ . • . . SONOMA COUNTY•TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • MINUTES • - • . _ NOVEMBER 13, 2000 ATTENDEES • _ • Director Reilly Director Keller. Director Kerns Director Flores • - Director tarter - . Director Salmon . •- I Director Cullinen . - • Director Wright • • 1• Chair Reilly called the meeting to order. ` ' '' ' . - - ITEM ' I. Public Comment • . 'There were none: __ - • IL Consent Item , _ • A. Minutes of the October 9, 2000 Meeting . Chair Reilly asked for additions or corrections to the previous meeting's;minutes. There were none. • Director Carter moved to approve the minutes. DirectorCullinen:seconded^the motion and the minutes•were approved as written with Directors Salmon and Flores abstaining: B. Renewal'of Executive;Director Contract I Director Wright motioned to approve the Executive Directors contract for another two years. • Director Flores-seconded the motion and it passed„unanimously. . III. Reports • A. ExecutWeCom-rnitteeRepot - The Executive Committee:met today and•reviewed the renewal of the Executive Director's contract. It hz .was being proposed for renewal fortwo,years°with a 5%;increase. The,Executive:Committee did . unanimously recommend`sapprovaliof the contract the Authority. They.also discussed forgoing the • December SCTA meeting,;as there will not be any pressing-issues-Until January.. The Executive Committee recommended that the next SCTA lie the 3rd Monday in January in order to allow •' jurisdictions*to-appoint any new members. Itwasalso recommended that staff arrange for an hour ' orientation prior to that SCTA meeting in January for any newly appointed'.members of the SCTA. B. NCRA,Report Postponed.until January 2001. 13 C. SCTAStaff-Report . • Suzanne Wilford gave an update on all reports. . 1. MTC Activities SMART has submitted the application to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission - requesting.$8 million initial funding for-tlre.ElR, project design,:preliminary"engineering and to pay for,a project manager to oversee the;development of theproject. .etaff has issued a'request for proposals for a project manager Proposals were due;last week.and the SMART Commissioners and-staff will rediew,the:,applications. This will.be'-on the agenda:at theDecember CTC'meeting. . .. The Transportation Fund forClean Air is a project that is administered by the�SCTA via funds that ' are providedrthrough the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). The annual report was submitted to.the BAAQMD atthe end ofOctbber. This is an annual;requirementfor the SCTA. Staff gave an update on the express bus program that MTC is proposing. 'In'the governor's budget and included in-the traffic congestion relief plan,was:$40 million for the bay area region for an express bus,system. The $40 million is.strictly for capital.. Because of a good economy and higher gas:taxes, there has been an;incremental;increase to theiSTA. This fund is a statewide account for . transit operating funds. There has been an increase in.that of approximately$11 million for the B'ay a Area MTC has proposed that Of that $11,million$3 million be used to,subsidize operating the. • express bus program. That's about 113m _., . bf;the amount anticipated to;be;regwred tolfully fund the -- • program.-MTC would-require the local,operators to come up.with the amount. SCTA staff and staff from.the Napa.Transportation:and Planning Agency and the Solano Transportation : Authority have some concerns.about that as do some of our transit operators in'Sonoma county. One of the concerns is that$1.millionof,;the$3 million.that.MTC is,proposing,be set aside for,this program comes out of the four-north bay counties and the'smaller transit operators in the other nine bay area counties. So Staff has been"atterjding meetings at MTC to make the argument that-the north bay;operators get that incrementat amount of that funding;so that can use it for • paratransit;or other types of transit needs. MTC is going totake this issue upon Wednesday. . Director Wright expressed her'concern. She stated there are three counties:who are not going to ' benefit at all She voiced her concern at the committee level as did Supervisor Winter from Na pa and askedithat they have time to meetwith ourauthorities and'staff. There was•no' recommendation made at the committee level and it goes-to-the commission Wednesday morning, It's a small amount of money in comparison, but significant,when itcomes to the shortfall that we have'in,STA funds for paratransit. Chair Reilly directed staff to:formulate a letter expressing the concern of•:the authority'over this - , formulation and.the disproportionate impact that it have:on Sonoma County's'paratransit. Dir Wright stated that Sonoma would not participate necessarily in the express bus p ram b s there the Golden Gate ondSonoma Count ycontributessignificantly to _ that. . 'Director Salmon asked if-Golden Gate could take advantage of this'money? Bob Dunlavey, Transportation Director of the City of Santa Rosa stated that,Golden Gate Transit has not expressed an interestin participating in the express bus program. The $3 million dollars . set aside'..is only Any public transit agency that wishes to,participate in,the express bus program needs:to come up With.a matching 75%.,•Golden Gate was not interested in participatin a two county study to look at express bus service because they felt they:have in place adequately addressed transportation needs of the North Bay.. . Suzanne Wilford stated that,she thought that Golden Gate would.bevery interested in ultimately expanding the express bus service in Sonoma County: Their concern'was their inability to fully fund / I • - theopefating They've starfed-to look-at-subscription service-to fend-the operations-of-an express - L7 bus.that''wouldtailorservice tothat particularbornpany s•employees but their problem with this, • • or program, as is the conceit With many of the transit operators is the operating subsidy that MTC is • offering is pretty minimal and most of them are using:their operating funds right now. ' Director Wright motion_ed,forstaff to write a letter expressing the concern about the express bus program. - Director Keller seconded the:motion and it passed unanimously: Ms.Wilford stated that MTC requested that the SCTAserve as a coordinating agency for updating the Metropolitan Transportation System. This is the regional roadway map that MTC uses to identify roads that are of regional significance. While initially.funds were not tied to this system, the evolution of the MTS°program has made-.it more andymore:important during funding cycles. Staff is; . - working with the public works directors from the 10 jurisdictions'to make.sure that all of the critical roadways'in each of those;jurisdictions is included in the regional map. The SCTA has to submit - - this to MTC by December 17, 2000. ' 2. CAC'Report The Citizen's Advisory,Committee-met on October 30 and discussed extensively the countywide transportation planning effort. At request of the SCTA last month to do so the CAC appointed ' four representatives to join the Technical Advisory subcommittee,that's developing the plan and they've scheduled the first meeting for ttiat group for this Friday. So the CAC will be participating on a regular basis in the development of the plan. Staff,hopesto have a full report on the countywide :F plan"at the January SCTA meeting. 0 ` 3. TAC.Report . nr The Technical Committee met on'October 26` It was an all day meeting. In the morning • }. Caltrans and MTC provided a workshop to Public Works.staff from throughout the county on Project. Delivery; They provided a walk through on-the various different processes required in'order to - - obtain the federal'andystate.money,that this°agencyhas programmed for these jurisdictions. It was very well received. There was great attendance. All:jurisdictions but one were present. Later in the afternoon at-the TAC meeting they talked'.about-the countywide plan as well as the Caftans:projects. 4. Legislative.Update A brief update on election results. There were two measures`in the Bay Area, Santa Clara County and Alameda County,'they were sales tax measures,`72 cent for 30 years-in Santa Clara, which was primarily for transit projects, got 70% of the vote. But-even more successful was.Alameda County with,a 20 year''/2 cent-tax, a mix Of highway as well as local and bike projects. They got an 80% • vote. . The good news in terms of future sales taxmeasures was that Prop 39 (school bond measure) passed with 55% . Director Keller would like staff to provide copies of the,Alameda and Santa Clara measures for the Authority's review. • . Staff will alsotdo;an analysis of Prop 35 to•see,how it may be used in Sonoma County. al' IV. Welfare to-Work Transportation Plan • A. Presentation by Project.ect Staff e • I.--' Mr:Roy Redlth, Plafef'Aal si"nth Sonbina aunty Fumat Services IIpartnf, gave'a'' ' presentation.on'the Welfare4o Work Program. He stated that'the project was:almost a year in the making. The Human Services Department is grateful'for the technical assistance that they received from MTC. MTC has also helped by developing a'Transportation Resource Guide,which each of the • case managers in the local Welfare to Work program has received and uses as a tool to counsel their clients. Contained in this transportation plan`aretwelve strategies for moving people from,welfare to work, He mentioned some of the aspects of the program "such"as•night timeibus service'for the SRJC • area; Childcare vansto shuttle.children from schoorto child care facilities;.to continue route 15 linking - employees to jobsites; guaranteed ride:•program vouchers for employees to use'in emergencies for cab rides and etc. Softie of these services will come online soon while others may take a more-time to develop. This transportation plan providesa blueprint for,future planning,efforts, The;Human Service Departmentrequests.that the SCTA adopt this plan for Welfare to Work transportation.service. Director Kerns commended:.everyone who participated in the developmentof the plan B. .Resolution:No..2000-017_ ' - DirecteraKerns,motioned to adopt the.Welfare to Work Transportation Plan, DirectorWright seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. Road Rehabilitation Call for Projects This funding has become available to;the Bay Area Region because of a good economy and an increase in federal gas tax;revenues.' Essentially the way TEA-21'was written the funding is tied.to the revenues that are,actually collected; The estimates were,low, there:was a windfall of twenty dollars in the Bay Area Region- The funding can onlysbe,used;forrehabilitation projects. MTC has'•allocated,it on a.populationand obligation rate formula: Sonoma County was.very,diligent in delivering a hundred percent of the projects; that they had to obligate by September.30t-of this year and as:a result Sonoma County will'receive roughly $1.3 million dollars•in_the county for rehab projects. The SCTA needs to determine where to spend this 'additional funding and MTC has required,that an.application process placiejand that;there be a,fair,call for projects- Staff and the technical advisory committee are recommending that itbe_ required that the funds . only be used for roadway rehab. Staff and the TAC are also suggesting-that'all the-projects focus on being overlay projects as'opposed to more intensive sorts of.rehabilitation projects.given'the limited amount•of money.. Chai •Reilly asked if that would also include Slurry Seal'and projects in that-category: Suzanne stated that=it would., • Director Kems stated that laterals of overlay projects 1.3 million dollars isnot that much. He asked what . could bee done with that? How many miles-could•we get for that? Dave Robinson, Sonoma County Public W orks, replied thatthey could getfourmiles with that amount. Suzanne stated that technically MTC disallows a proportionate distribution of these types of.funds. Having this:conversation at"the TAC;meeting lastmonth,there were several jurisdictions that felt it:would,just simply not be worth it if they were going to'get ten thousand!dollars or evenyfifty thousand dollars to go through,the federal process because these are federal funds- There are some jurisdictions,-which may not attempt to go after the funds just because they are fairly difficultto obtain in terms of process, Director Flores asked`how much armor coating could be done with the$1:3•million_dollars? Joe Gaffney stated that the Slurry Seal'is definitely less expensive than full scale overlay. It would be difficult to estirnat&because generally as part of aslurry seal project you would also-do some •. reconstruction, On a street that has.ome areas;that need to be reconstructed and then the;slurry seal makes it all black.again and tightens the surface up. It would cost $10,000 a mile:forslurry seal. Not all streets qualify for slurry seal. Reconstruction generally means removing;all the asphalt and replacing it. DirectorCullinen motioned for staff•to issue a.call for projectsfor RABA•funds. • Director Keller seconded the motion and it passed'unanimously. o . • • VI. Update on Caltrans:Projects • Jonathan Lee, Design Senior for Caltrans gave an update on all Caltrans.projects. . • • • A. •East Washington to Route 116 The PSR for the southbound^:auxiliary lane is due in December•2000.and the;PSR for the HOV and interchange improvements`is'due summer 2001. The Route 37 to Atherton PSR'is due December 2000. • Staff attendedthe•CTC meeting:in November where there'was-'some discussion about"the ITIP where '• they were proposing.to spend $5 million for the•auxiliary lane if the SCTA approved $2 million. Staff • 'presented the CTC the commitment of that$2,million and they will officially approve'the ITIP at their December,meeting. Staff anticipates that project•to be fullyfunded and.approved at the CTC December meeting. B. Mario/Sonoma Narrows . The last meeting washeld October 2e.. The purpose and.need was,discussed and defined. The next: meeting will be November 17 in Navato-at930 a.m. • C. Wilfred Avenue to Route 12 • The Regional Water Quality Control;Board'has accepted:Caltrans:application.and has(put the permit up to public review. That ended November11th and Caltrans is in the process of trying to get the actual • 2s permit. Caltrans has a tentative advertising date of November20 and tentative bid opening date of January 10, 2001. D. 'Route 12 to Steele Lane Theeth street undercrossing-has:been officiall •added to the preferred alternative. There are some minor revisions in the traffic numbers but Caltrans anticipates no change in schedule. There has been • :a scoping meeting set forNovember29 at the Santa Rosa Middle School from 5-8 p.m. • •, . Ms. Wilford stated that staff received_a phone.call from MTC.indicating that the CTC is concerned that the PSR for the Steele Lane;Interchange,which has been added into the Route 12 to'Steele project, indicates that Sonoma County is;$198,000 short on:the,project: In talking with Caltrans when staff submitted the.STIP`application for this, they:actually filled:'out.the forms and said that when Sonoma County got the 4^,million from the state budget'the project was fully funded. However because of this $198,000 discrepancy the CTC is not:willing,to vote to include the project as.fully funded so MTC staff after numerous phone conversations with the CTC finallyagreed-that•they would;have'to do something:, • They are requesting that the $198,000 be committed from the SCTA from our STIP account to this project so that it can be fully funded: The request from MTC because•it was at such late notice that the SCTA:approve.sending a letter,agreeing to fully fund the project:and'allocating those funds to the project. Director Kerns motioned that staff to send'a letter to MTGagreeing to allocate $198,000 from SCTA's STIP reserveiaccbUntto'fullyfund the:Rbute"12 to Steele Lane project. Director Wright.seconded the motion and it-passed unanimously. • Chair Reilly requested that staff research other counties in the state to see if they made other provisions for cost overruns.-. • VII. SCTA Goal Setting Process Ms Wilford stated thatin September Director Torliatt suggested that the SCTA consider reviewing the existing orocess of staff putting together an overall work program for the agency and to revisit whether or 7 • • • • • not it would,tie appropriate for the authority hold a.goal setting process: The,discussion:centered on the overall review of the purpose and requirements.that,the SCTA must fulfill. She,gave,a brief overview of the SCTA•Overall Work.Program, theMTC/CTC Planning and`Programming,Agreement and the ordinance that created the SCTA. - Director Salmon would like to review the Countywide Transportation Plan before setting:any.goals. - Ms:.Wilford stated that draft of the plan will be presented atthe January SCTA. Director Carter suggested that there be a separate meeting for goal setting.after'the`SCTA orientation in January. . . Director Flores'suggested focusing om5'year and 10 year goals: - • Director Kems stated thatthe'SCTA should take a,look atlong•term and short term.goals to discuss sales ., tax measures or an alternative to it as a goal. Chair Reilly stated that-the TAC and CAC should`help develop the goals Director Salmon suggested presenting the draft of the Transportation Plan at the SCTA orientation. . X. Adjourn • Chair Reilly commended the members-of the Board: • Director Carter gave especial thanksto;staff far'alftheirefforts. • Director Keller thanked staff and the public, The meeting was adjourned at'S:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanette ood Executive.Assistant . • • • • • • . i . • ■ j . .. . i q: • • • • • SONOMA COUNTY"TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY STAFF REPORT • • DATE: April 9, 2001 TO: Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA)' FROM: Suzanne'•Wilford, Executive Director •SUBJECT: ITEM IIIC; SCTA.Staff Report • • 1. MTC Activities Staff will provide a report on the MTC trip to Washington DC, the:regiorial express bus study and - . the status of STA funds,at the;SCTAmeeting. 2. CAC Report _ . - The CAC met on March 26 to discuss. SMART, the Countywide Transportation plan, GARVEE lip bonds:Cycle Two TEA Projects,-and issues related to a'future sales tax measure. The next CAC meeting is April 30, 2001 and will be held at a later time in order to conduct a special outreach forum for the'2001 Regional Transportation Plan(pending SCTA approval). 3. TAC Report The TAC met on March29 to discuss,the countywide transportation plan, GARVEE bonds, Caltrans projects, the TFCA program for 2001/02, and the 2001 Regional.Transportation Plan. The next TAC meeting is April 19', 2001. 4. Caltrans Report. Highway 101: Marin/Sonoma Narrows— the Policy Advisory Group (PAG)for the project met in Marchito finalize the'Purpose:and Need Statement for the EIR/EIS. Work is in progress on some of'the technical studies required for the EIR/EIS.'The PAG held a discussion about access and •potential frontage roads neededfor the.project.'Caltrans,is provided some visual images of potential project impacts and=is working on additional mapping that shows existing access points and existing parcels. The next PAG meeting will be April 20, 2001 in Petaluma. Highway 101: Wilfred toHighway 12 Caltrans held a public meeting on March28 to go over the construction schedule and potential. impacts of the project. A -groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for April 4 at 11:00AM at the Todd Road Interchange. Highway 101: Highway 12 to'Steele Lane—Caltrans continues to meet regularly with Santa Rosa I Public Works staff and CityVision on the development of thetproject The draft EIR/EIS is scheduled for release to the public in November 2001. Some issues have arisen with the Army Corp of Engineers permit, but Caltrans is working with the Corp to-avoid any possible delays. Highway 101: Highway 116'East to Old Redwood Highway—Caltrans:is completing the Project Study Report for this project and will finalize it by July 2001. Several city council members have e_quested-Caltrans_inctudtthe Rainier_Interco.bange..in..the Project.Study,Report.aod_C_altcans.has._-_. . .. • 2 • agreed to ido so. At this time, the project has been included in the Narrows; project!. for the environmental review, but it remains un-funded for design- and 'construction'. However, the environmental work for the auxiliary lane component of the project is underway and the.construction date is scheduled for late 2003.:Caltrans will be providing a report to the SCTA in May about the 101 climbing lane projector the badge going,southbound: This is a.SHOPP-funded°project thatisi being done in addition to the auxiliary lane. . • 5. Meetings,Activities, Events and Correspondence • The SMART Commission met in March provided final input on the Request for'Proposals that SMART Will be issuing for on-call engineering'work and work related to rolling stock selection and maintenance facility development.The next SMART meeting is April 18, 20011n Novato at 2:OOPM. • • • . . . . . , .. • . . . . . .. • . . ... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . • . . . . . , . . . • . .. . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. . • . . . . . , . . . . , . . ... • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . ,, • . . . . . , . . . . . , . ., , .. . . . . . _ _• .. . ,..... . . . . . _ . . . . . . , . . .,,,,,, ,..„...... c_.„ . . . . . .7A - . I i . I • . 1 . I . 1 . I •_ I 3 • "4.4:e4f • L • ••• • • • SONOMA.C-OUNTY'TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY -S T'A F'F REPORT DATE: April 9; 2001, • TO: Sonoma County Transportation.Authority (SCTA) • FROM: Suzanne;Wilford, Executive Director - • SUBJECT: ITEM IV .,FY2001/2002 TFCA Program of'Projects • ISSUE: • Shall the SCTA approve the FY 2001/2002 TFCA Program of Projects,recommended by the TAC? BACKGROUND:, As the program manager for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air(TFCA)40% Funds, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority(SCTA) is required to adopt,a program of projects for these funds - each year The projects-thatcanibe funded with these fundsrare limited by rules,.adopted by the .Bay Area Air Quality Management District;(BAAQMD), that focuson projects known to provide a benefit,to air quality. These funds are generated through a $4'surcharge on vehicle registrations • in the Bay Area Each county receives 40%.of the funds generated withirrtheircounty as"guarantee funds."The-SCTA=is the project manager for the 40%funds and isiresponsible for programming the funds and overseeing project delivery. • In Sonoma County only the southern portion of the County is within the Air{District Therefore, _ - Cloverdale and Healdsburg•and the unincorporated area north,:of Windsor do not receive funds from the TFCA program administered by the SCTA.'The-funds received are divided on a,population basis amongithe eligible.jurisdictions! The SCTA receives'the'funds in two installments and these funds are maintained in a separate account uitil:requests for payment are received from project sponsors Funds are paid on a reimbursement,only basis upon the SCTA's receiptof a bill from the project • sponsor. • FY 2001/2002 Program This year two jurisdictions are proposing;projects. The attached list of projects-shows the proposed projects as well•sa theamountof funds availableifor each jurisdiction:The totaltamount of funds available for programming this year is=$876670 The SCTA receives.5 3/0 of the newly generated funds and the interest earned for administration: This totals $30;932 for FY 2001/2002. Sonoma County Transit has requestedthat Cotati; Rohnert Park -Sebastopol, Sonomasand Windsor contribute all or a'portion of their available funds for FY 2001/2002 to the County,s;CNG bus purchase. With their contributions Sonoma County'Transit will program-$4.10,347 for new buses. Santa Rosa has submitted projects for FY 2000/2001 totaling;$249,755: Petaluma,.Rohnert Park and Sebastopol did not submit projects but were allocated;funds that will be rolled forward to next year for programming. The total amount of funds not programmed;is $216,568. REQUESTED;ACTION: Review the TAC's recommendation for the FY 2001/2002 TFCA Program of Projects-and consider - . .adoption_ ,. .. . . .. • ■ • , m . ' . �m �y, N'. Priv e, P.• a 1° as `°-�. • {70-74)11. • ro. aa; u IiiIiF `SF ,,, iiiii: . ,mY ' a, j • m A f p!�( J fPr. . co y fY M, . Sw 7 V. � o Q d \a d; '..E o LL '��f 3:tr c: .- E > a fo J C 2 d4 ° .. p ii_ cv P i: I I J ' g t yt' m v • A vl ` a V1 -f• � . N a. {C. e ' N.en ri" •. .a d', p w N I, a. aU1 m 1:" v Z• T' LL 6 i O U N' m.. a. °a, co P 'Y-0...o Na o mo do W e."N m 9 ai A. bm oti m∎ " am 0 `v 2. r . ; .. N C f O - 2:1 • • r J • Resolution No. 2001-002 • Sonoma.County Transportation Authority SantaiRosa, California. April 9, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION .AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF . CALIFORNIA,ADOPTING A PROGRAM,OF PROJECTS FOR THE FY 2001/2002 TRANSPORTATION FUND•FOR CLEAN•AIR (TFCA) PROGRAM' FOR THE • COUNTY OF THE SONOMA: WHEREAS,. the Sonoma, County Transportation Authority is_the program, manager--•for.-the • TransportationFundifor Clean Air(TFCA) Funds in Sonoma County; and WHEREAS, each year the eligible jurisdictions:prepare a program of projects for the TFCA funds received by Sonoma County based on a vehicle registration surcharge'assessed on those vehicles registered within the Bay Area Air Quality'Management.District air basin;,and WHEREAS;,the.Sonoma County Transportation Authority holds the funds received.through this program in a separate interest bearing^^account;,;and • WHEREAS, the interest generatedonrthese funds must be programmed to clean air projects and the SCTA is responsible,for programming-these funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does-hereby adopt the list ofs projects shown as "Attachment A" as the TFCA Program of Projects for FY 2001/2002, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SCTA does herebydirectthe.Executive Director to submit an application for the attached program of projects to the Bay.Area Air'Quality`Management District for funding with the FY 2001/2002:TFCA.funds. THE FOREGOING ,RESOLUTION. was introduced'::by Director who moved its adoption, seconded by Director=, andadopted;by the following vote: Director Costello Director Kems Director Fok Director Mackenzie Director Gleason Director Robinson . Director Healy . Director'Salmon Director.Jehn DirectoriSmith Director Kelley Director Wright 111/ Ayes: Noes: Absent: • Abstain: 1P: • • SO ORDERED I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board';of Directors:of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held onrApril 9;•2001. Suzanne Executive Director' • Clerk,Sonoma County Transportation Authority • • • • • • TFCA P rogram of Projects FY2001/02 Project Amount Sponsor Project Requested County CNG; Bus Purchase $ 410,347 • Santa Rosa, Student Bus Pass Subsidy 80,000 Santa Rosa Volutary Trip.Reduction.Program 149,255 Santa Rosa Para-transit,Taxi Service . _ 20,500 • - Project Total $ 660,102 SCTA Administration $ 30,932 TOTAL 2001/2002 TFCA Program $ 691,034 • • • • Attachment A 3 1 : • IC �..1, :.iS.•;1•iii- e {• . ' •• . • • • •• • . . . • • ,t3.cj • • • • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY STAFF .REPORT • DATE: April'9;r2001 TO: Sonoma COUnty'Transportation'Authority (SCTA) • FROM: SuzannaWilford, Executive;Director SUBJECT: ITEM V: FY2001/2002 Coordinated Claim.for Transit• ISSUE: • Should the SCTA'adept the T.DA/STA Coordinated Claim'for FY 2001/2002 as recommended by the Transit Technical AdvisoryComniittee and the:Paratransit Coordinating;Committee? BACKGROUND: • Each year a:Coordinated Claim for Transportation Development Act (TDA)-and:State.Transit , Assistance'(STA)funds,is developed bythe jurisdictions of Sonoma County:, These funds are the primary source of operating revenue for all of Sonoma5Countys.transit operators: Because the service areas of transit operators in Sonoma County'cross.junsdictional:boundaries, MTC requires,that a Coordinated Claim for these funds be prepared and adopted annually-by each jurisdiction in`Sonoma'County and by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. . The Coordinated Claim documents,existing inter-jurisdictional funding agreements for transit services in The Claim describes the disthbUtion of TDA and"STA,funds. The n m process of developing the_ Coordinated Claim each•year is the ;primary mechanism for establishing contribution agreements:-for services provided by transit operators to local jurisdictions The Coordinated Claim must:by,reviewedrbythe Transit,Technical°Advisory Committee and the Paratransit Coordinated Committee•(PCC). • Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Coordinated Claim: Transportation'Development Act (TDA). Funds: TDA revenues are derived'from sales tax receipts (one quarter of 1%o of the state_sales tax) and are/therefore affected by changes in the economy. In,FY 206-1/2062, $18200,000 in TDA funds is projected for disbursement in Sonoma County. In FY'2000/2001, $16,700;000 was disbursed and $14,875,000 was;,disbursed in FY 1999/2000. Due to a strong economy, FY 2001/2002 ,funds are anticipated to increase approximately 11% over FY 2000/2001. In general, most jurisdictions'provide TDA funding to Sonoma County Transit for a variety of contract transit services. For a complete listing of all contracted services, please refer to the Coordinated Claim: Since FY-1997/1998,Santa Rosa.has s claimed TDA funds generated within the Roseland area per an agreement with Sonoma County: Roseland funds.claimed by Santa Rosa are used to support CityBus services in the:Roseland Area. Based on a contribution formula, established in FY 1996/1997, all.Sonoma County entities contribute to Golden Gate'Transit (GGT). Petaluma Cotati, Rohnert Park and Sebastopol will • contribute an amount equal`to 27.94%of-their200112002 TDA apportionment to:support GGTa Santa Rosa will contribute 25% of its;FY,2001/2002 TDA,apportionmentand' the ceitieS of Windsor, Heaiidsburg and Cloverdale wilheach contribute 1:1•.38%fof their FY 200112002'TDA • apportionment. Collectively as required,by MTCjresolution 2858„these contributions provide 'aniamountiequal:to:25%ofSonoma:CouhWs FY2001'/2002 TDA funds. In an effort to to fund complementary paratransit, services required Eby the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)of 1990:,,each entity that contracts withSonoma CountyrTranstt contributes an,additional,20% of their fixed-route_contnbutions'torsupport ADA.required paratransittservices_ "Currently,"'Sonoma.County and the city of:Senta`Rosa.contractwith Volunteer Wheels toprovide beret-rah-Sit services within their,respective serviceareas. • TDA funds can.also be used'for non-transit purposes if MTC makes.a finding,"that"all transit. needs which are reasonable,to meetiarebeir g"met" in those jurisdictions claiming funds for other purposes. Recognizing the increasedrneed for;parafransit'seryicesand continuing;unmet transit needs, the'Paratransit Coordinating•Committee ofthe'SCTA recommends that=all TDA funds be usedifor transit. Transit operators°have been;workingwithaaffected local.jurisdictions to phase.out the:use'of TDA funds for streets and roads;purposes. Itis anticipated'th at those.communities4ill make their fiha.streets and,roads'claims dunng•FY"2001/2002, • State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds:,State Transit Assistance Fundsiare allocated from three subcategories;(1)'•STA,Population Formula'Funds (2)tSTA Regional Paratransit°Funds and• (3) STA Revenue-Based Funds. Each category has a;slightly different<set of:requirements for • its distribution.- • The three categories are:descnbed'inabnef as follows' (1), .Population Formula Funds are allocated to local.junsdictiens on a;population • basis and;can,only be used on transit projects Entities may claim from current,year;and. prior year funds and may borrowragainstthe fund as.long as=the=fund, as a whole, maintains a positive balance: ' (2), Regional Paratransit Funds! are available at MTC's discretion for paratransit projects:submitted through this coordinated process. Eligible claimants r are.Sonoma County Transit, Petaluma Transit and:SantaiRosa Transit. As in prior years„10%iof FY 2001/2002 Regional Paratransit funds have been dedicated to Golden Gateto,support • its regional'ADA parafransit§ervices: (3) Revenue:Based Funds are allocated',only to eligible Article4 transit operators:In°Sonoma County the cities of Healdsburg, Cloverdale,:Santa Rbsa,iand the. county are eligible for these funds. REQUESTED ACTION; • , • Reyiew the FY 2001/20024Coordinate_d Claim*`for TDA and STA,Funds and`consider adoption of Resolution No.2001-003: "Copies of theCoordinated Clairri area availableto°the public by requestto the SCTA:. • • • • • • • Resolution No. 2001-003 • Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California Aprit9, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION,AUTHORITY,'COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2001/2002 SONOMA COUNTY' COORDINATED CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT.,(TDA)AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) FUNDS- WHEREAS, the Cities and County of Sonoma are eligible for Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Transit Assistance (STA)funds; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has adopted rules and regulations governing the administration of these funds; and • WHEREAS, consistent with the adopted rules and regulations,the,Sonoma County.Transportation Authority (SCTA) is required to adopt a Sonoma County Coordinated Claim for Transportation , Development Act (T.DA) and-State Transit'Assistance (STA) funds developed in coordination with lball the Cities and the County; and. WHEREAS, consistent with the adopted rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Paratransit Coordinating Committee (PCC) has endorsed the Coordinated Claims. • NOW, THEREFORE, B IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County , Transportation Authority does hereby adopt the;attached:'"Sonoma•County TDA/STA Coordinated Claims Fiscal Year 2001/2002? . • THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was moved by Director-, and seconded by Director -- and • adopted by the following vote: Director Costello Director Kerns Director'Fozi Director Mackenzie. Director Gleason Director'Robinson Director Healy Director Salmon • Director Jehri Director Smith • Director Kelley Direct&Wright Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: • SO ORDERED I, the undersigned,`ce tify,that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted:at,a regular meeting of the Board of Directors:of the Sonoma County Transportation Authorityheld on April 9, 2001. IIP Suzanne Wilford, Executive.Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority 3 0 • • • • yn • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY STAFF REP-ORT DATE: .April 9, 20011 TO: Sonoma•County Transportation Authority(SCTA) • FROM: Suzanne Wilford, Executive Director SUBJECT: ITEM VI: TDA Article 3 Program for Bicycles ISSUE: Shall'the SCTA approve the:FY'2001/2002 TDA Article l3 Program of Projects? BACKGROUND: „ tau, i. Each year Sonoma County receives.funds from the Transportation Development Act(TDA) which are set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects. TDA Article 3 funds represent roughly 2% of the total amount of TDA funds received by the County after planning and administration funding is subtracted. Thisyear approximately$350,760 will be available in Sonoma County for TDA Article 3 projects. As required by SCTA Resolution No 92-019, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) uses a "scorecord” based on population to.allocate TDA Article 3 funds. The - • "scorecard" reflects.the.TDA Article 3 fund balance for the previous year and projects the fund balances forward. The CBAC develops the'TDA Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian funds project list each year and makes a recommendation to the SCTA about these projects. - In order to ensure that TDA Article 3 projects represent the.values and priorities of bicyclists and ' pedestrians, local bicycle advisory Committees in larger communities (population of over 10,000) review projects. For smaller jurisdictions the CBAC acts as the local reviewing committee for TDA ' Article 3 projects. The CBAC then reviews all of the projects submitted for TDA Article 3 funding and prioritizes them if necessary. • FY 2001/2002 TDA Article 3 Projects This year, in accordance'with MTC Resolution No 875 and SCTA Resolution No 92=019, each jurisdiction was invited to submit TDA Article 3 projects'to the CBAC for review for funding in FY 2001/2002-. Eight projects were;submitted for FY 2001/2002. The,CBAC has approved the-following list as aTecommendation o the SCTA. • • LI . • • • • • Li? • TDA Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project List Jurisdiction Project(s) FY 2001/02 Amount Petaluma Upgrades and maintenance for paths in various locations $100,000 Rohnert Park/Cotati Commerce Blvd/Laguna Bike path $64,040 (originally approved'in97) Sonoma West and,East,MacArthur Streets from Fifth Street West to $7,500 Fifth Street East-class Il,striping Windsor Faught Creek $19,344 (revised projects originally approved _Windsor Creek (Arata to Hiram Lewis Park) $40,992 in 2000) • Windsor Creek'(Natalie Dr. to Dizzy Gillespie-.Way) $23,844 County of Sonoma Green Valley Road Bike Lanes $80,000 On street class II connection for the West-County Trail just north of Graton Old Redwood Highway Bike lanes $100,000 .. On street class II facility between Eastside Road and the southern Healdsburg city limits • Total for all jurisdictions $435,720 . • REQUESTED ACTION: . Review: the project list for FY 2001/2002 TDA Article 3 funds and consider adoption of Resolution No. 2001-004. • • • • • � 3 1 • t • Resolution No. 2001-004 Sonoma County Transportation Authority - „ , - Santa.Rosa; California April 9, 2001 RESOLUTION, OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A PROJECT LIST FOR THE. FY 200112002 ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA)'ARTICLE 3, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FUNDS FOR SONOMA COUNTY WHEREAS, the cities and County of Sonoma are eligible.for Transportation Development Act(TDA)- Article3 funds; and • WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has adopted Resolution No. 875 establishing procedures and project evaluation criteria for these funds; and WHEREAS;the Sonoma-County Transportation Authority requires the appointment of local bicycle ' it advisory committees and has established the Sonoma County Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee with representatives from each jurisdiction in Sonoma County; and WHEREAS, City and County bicycle advisory committees have been appointed, have met and have reviewed bicycle and pedestrian projects submitted for TDA Article 3 fund s and recommended them for consideration by the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS;the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee is required to recommend a TDA Article 3 project list to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority for their approval; and • WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee finds these projects to be consistent with those requirements and criteria set,forth for TDA Article 3 projects; and • WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee endorses the TDA Article 3 project list for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 attached'as"Attachment A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does hereby find the projects attached hereto as"Attachment A"suitable for funding under TDA Article 3; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that,the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does hereby authorize the distribution,of TDA Article 3 funds to the:'above projects and directs the Executive Director to submit these projects to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for TDA Article 3 _ funding. • L, 5 • • THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced by Director—who moved_its adoption, seconded by Director—and,adopted by the following vote:.. Director Costello Director Kems Director Fox Director Mackenzie Director Gleason • Director Robinson Director,Healy - Director Salmon • Director Jehn Director`Srriith, • Director Kelley Director.W right Ayes: - Noes: • Absent: ' • Abstain: 'SO ORDERED . ' • • - I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regularmeeting of the Board of.Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 9; 2001. Suzanne Wilford, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation;Authority r . •• • • • • • • O • . . . . . . ' . . . _ - ' - . • . - . • • . , , . . Attachment A, . . _ . . - • ' TDA Article 3 -.Bicycle,and'Pedeitrian'Facilities Project List " . - ' Jurisdiction . • Project(s) FY 2001/02 • , . Amount . . Petaluma Upgrades.and maintenance for paths in various locations $100,000 , Rohnert Park/Cotati Commerce Bivd/Laguna Bike path $64,040- (originally approved in 97) Sonoma West andEast MacArthur Streets from Fifth Street West to $7,500 Fifth StreelEast- class II,stri_ping • • Windsor - . FaughtCreek .. .- $19,344. .- (revised projects . originally approved Windsor Creek (Arata to Hiram.Lewis Park) $40,992 in 2000) Windsor Creek (Natalie Dr. to Dizzy Gillespie Way) $23,844 County of Sonoma Green,Valley Road Bike Lanes • $80,000 On street Class II connection for the West County Trail just . north of Graton . . - Old Redwood Highway Bike lanes . . $100,000 . - , . • On street class II facility between Eastside Road and the ., - southern Healdsburg city limits Total forall jurisdictions $435,720- , A ._, . . • . , _., . , , ... • _ • . _ • • • - • • , . . • _ . . . . . . _ H 7 . • ' " • _ • • - • • _ • • • • . • Li el . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. . , .. . . . . . . . .. . •. . . . . • ,... . . . r ..t . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,_ . . . . . . . . . _ . , .. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. _ ... . _ . . . • . , . . . . • . . . . , . . . . . . . . ...... .. .. , . . . . . . . . .. . , .. . . , 0 . . . . . . . • . . . . • , . . • . • . .. • . . . . . . . . . ■ . . . i . S . . . 0 . . ,•. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LI el: • . . . . . • go • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • STAFF REPORT' • DATE: April 9, 2001 TO: Sonoma County Transportation Authority(SCTA). FROM: Suzanne Wilford; Executive Director • SUBJECT: ITEM VII: Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA)`'Funds, Cycle Two ISSUE: ' How shall the SCTA program the second cycle of Transportation E nhancementActivities (TEA) funds? BACKGROUND: Sonoma County was allocated,$1.B million in TEA funds for funding period FY97/98 through FY02/03.,The SCTA'decided to divide the funds`into two cycles. The first cycle was-programmed in July 1999'in the amount of$1.13 million. The remaining $670,000 was set aside for cycle two. A call for projects was issued for cycle two and four applications totaling $806,000were received. A scoring team made up of TAC and CAC representatives met to rank theprojects and developed a recommendation, which was submitted to the full TAC and CAC.Both committees accepted the recommendation. The recommendation for cycle;two calls for three of the,four projects°submitted to receive the full ' amount of funding ,requested. The fourth project should receive the remaining funds available. Please refer to the attached table for project description, amount.requested, project score, and recommended level of funding. ' REQUESTED ACTION: Review the TAC and CAC recommendation for cycle two TEA funds and consider adoption of Resolution No. 2001-005. • • • • • • • T • • 52 • • Resolution No. 2001-005 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 9, 2001 RESOLUTION, OF THE COARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CYCLE TWO "FUNDING FOR TRANSPORATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FUNDING . WHEREAS, the Sonoma County'Transportation Authority (SCTA) is countywide transportation ,agency responsible for programming Transportation Enhancement,Activities funds; and WHEREAS, the MetropolltanaTranSPprtatiOfl Commission (MTC) has informed the SCTA that$1.9 million is available for the period FY97/98sthrough FY02/03; and WHEREAS, the SCTA divided the funding into two cycles and has programmed $1.13 million in the • first cycle; and WHEREAS, the SCTA did a call for projects and held an open;process.forthe second cycle; and. WHEREAS,,the list of projects;attachedihereto, as.Attachment A,constitutes the ranking of those projects submitted under cycle two. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ',RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority adopts this, 'Resolution providing for $860,000 in funding for the Transportation Enhancement'Activities,projects identified in Attachment A. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION 'was introduced by Director --, who moved its adoption, seconded by Director--•and adopted by'the following vote: Director Costello Director Kerns, Director Fox Director,Mackenzie Director Gleason Director Robinson Director Healy Director Salmon Director Jelin Director Smith Director Kelley' Director Wright Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: I, the undersigned,certify that the foregoing•resolutionwas duly adopted at a regular meting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma.County'Transportation authority held on April 9, 2001. • Suzanne Wilford,,Executive;Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority 53 • 0: • • • • O 00O :00; : O O O _,.._ O 0 O.O. C'.O. N '05'D co 7; H' Ce U 69•69.64.b9 N_ . O • 73 0 0 0, O O O"O a , 0 0 0;0 O0 0 0 ,0 w .. a 00 0 0 0 0,0.0 it C C. O t0:0 0 -0 co' cc m tnmv:�; ti oM � o E N N 's-, co O N to v co E E • O N al N la 4- m is O 0[100 O C c w y 0 0;O O 0 L 'E • C a-• 0 Ch 0 0 0 0 O• Cl" D' ca V�L0 O N ''.= 'O U m - E 'O' N N,N. aD •� '-T .'E < o -C C Q d ;3 Ce 6R !i V} O N.. .O N L f' • O .-, O i.. at.• ca 0 m O O ,�, 3 Vl a O a ` O CO. CO',' O CO -o O - . m 0 V r ra U i " C L :N -0 O . CI rn c E a°i c, c w 3 4/.;: u 0. r mow, w =, o a� `a� c; 0! O .n m �; c w ;Y = m ;m ' ,; L ,v^ L m La, -E o o > .o w cu o)> ,3r .� .. O)LN aS rte' -N;. N - . L Q c 'O -Q m o Q S ¢ �° E` m . �3 " c W o in o CD .o 0 tn. D3 E m • 1= c m w c m L a' to m E o, C CO " 3 -w- c 0 CO CO -p. C. E Oc •a-- L T V1. cII 'N V a) m- N O 0 Q m a) ,,,_ A Ns O o a•E 8 3 — 3, �' d .m Y' O) _ 'C al 0] . >. Q a :c in a.-•-• a) 0 .E c U m .c o .= 1 E n• . w o` N a ca a) a) E a oo. w 0 d 2 w S, o ED- a � E wr' m ,> ., . ,3 m C7 a m o D.` L �G Y co L. X co N m ▪O) a) Id a) N• O iN 0 'C ,'N O co • -0 UTCJ 0 3 rn o m L 0 o C y Cu E - E • 3 O, 2. ICM N N Q m'•y 60.6" v7 mrn no• :Li U; m? g c> co • O 3 �_cn a 'CO in a w m L._ Cli j O'' ca p .. N! or w'O'' .. .... .3 -».. O O'. 0_..N. _S o .. ,5o m - . , r)(2 • •. lac • a • 1 • • S °SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION;AUTHORfl y .STAFF REPORT. - DATE: April 9, 2001 TO: Sonoma County Transportation.Authority (SCTA) • FROM: Suzanne'Wilford, Executive Director • - • SUBJECT: ITEM VIII:_SCTA Ad-Hoc Subcommittee;Report; ISSUE What is the status,of the SCTA,Ad-Hoc Committee established"to loolCat potential future funding options? BACKGROUND • • ' • At the January SCTA meeting Chair,Kems appointedien"ad-hoc;subcommittee of five Directors to examine future funding options for tiansportation.and ideas for community involvement. The ad-hoc ' subcommittee held its initial meeting onFebruary 15 Based'on that;meeting; Chair Kems and the NV' ad-hoc subcommittee members agreed to meet with Rick Brown of the,Results Group to discuss ' the possibility of having' a facilitated process to establish a strategy for moving forward on • transportation.priorities. This::rneeting'has notyet'occurred. • Prior to the ad-hoc subcommittee meeting.with Mr.,Brown, staff was asked to clarify the intent of the ad-hoc subcommittee:and further define membership on the subcommittee as there had been • reference to creating a large community-based. Committee as well as one made. up of SCTA Directors: To that end, this agenda item is meant to clarify the ;composition of the advisory ad-hoc subcommittee of the SCTA created in January, and confirm that it is`made up solely of Directors • :Mackenzie, Healy, Wright:,Smith and Chair Kems. The ad-hoc subcommittee will over the next • • several months, consider and developtideas:for involving the community in,examining transportation, priorities andhfunding options'in Sonoma County. One'issuethat the,ad=hoc subcommittee may wish to explore is the, creation of a large community based advisory committea to assist it with transportation issues. The ad-hod subcommittee will report.to/the full SCTA:as appropriate. REQUESTED ACTION- Confirm and reaffirm the creation of an advisory ad-hoc.subcommittee consisting solely of Directors Mackenzie, Healy,°Wright, Smith and Chair Kerns°,for the limited short-term purpose of developing ideas for involving the community in examining transportation priorities and funding options in SonomaCounty: • • 5 .• . . . • , • . _ . • . - . . . . . 7 — • • • ' • . a - • . ■ • ft • • • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AU THORITY STAFF REPORT • • DATE: April 9, 2001 • - TO: Sonorna.County'Transportation Authority (SCTA) • • FROM: Suzanne Wilford, Executive.Director SUBJECT: ITEM IX: 2001 Regional Transportation Plan ISSUE:' How is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approaching the development of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan? What is the schedule and how shall the SCTA participate in public • outreach and project selection?: BACKGROUND: MTC staff has been invited,to attend theApnl'SCTA meeting to provide a briefing on-the Regional ' - ' • Transportation Plan (RTP) process. For reference, there are several items attached that describe the RTP process. The SCTA is responsible for participating in the regional process-and'has.been asked specifically to assist MTC in public outreach efforts (please see attached memo). TO that end, staff and the CAC Request that the SCTA consider holding a special RTP,public meeting on April 30„2001'at 5:30PM. MTC would assist in coordinating and publicizing the meeting. The CAC.would serve as the • . organizing body and SCTA Directors and MTC Commissioners would be invited to attend. Input '' from the meeting would then be reported back to the SCTA on May 14 as part of the RTP and Countywide Transportation Plant,discussion. Special effort to provide outreach to low-income and I minority communities covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act will be made. Information on the project selection process:is not yet available.as';MTC is still,working on revenue . • estimates:for each county. Once those figures are available and.the Countywide Transportation Plan list is refined staff will bring the information back to the SCTA. A key component to the RTP update this year is the region's desire to craft a regional transit expansion agreement that will lock in which key rail and bus expansion projects will receive future funding.,A similar agreement was established in 1988 by MTC Resolution No 1876 and guaranteed that projects such as BART to the San Francisco Airport, the:Santa'Clara light rail extension to Tasman, and the BART extension`to Dublin and Bay Point. The Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Commission (SMART) is requesting inclusion in any regional agreement and is seeking $100 million. REQUESTED ACTION: Review the materials:related;to the RTP.process and The regional transit expansion agreement, discuss the SCTA's role:in'outreach and provide direction to staff. • (2) . • • METROPOL'IdI'AN -Joseph'P.Bort MetroCenter ,a :T T-R A'NSPORTATION 101 Eighih Street t- ` - Oakland,CA 94607-4700 . - .f - COMMISSION 'TeI.:510.464.7700- TTY/rDD:510.464.7769 Fax:510.464.7846 - e-mail:ink @mtcca.gov ' Web site:www.mtc.ca.gov • Javier T.Baal e*av' simian.nanny 'Febniary:23, 2001 Shams:r�q Pae.Chan - . . Ode,fta .0 aCutup • IMAPP'. . . DearBay Area Partner _ - ' .. . - - -- • . . Gun afAbs.d Cou,q . . Fab ARi➢ As MTC initiates the+2001 update of the Regional Transportation'Flan(RTP),,the� US.°.pmdn of Main, mAUAv°evehpnn° . frainewark.foi filture tr - _ .. . ' ansportahon decisions m the;niaeouuty-Bay Area, ' Si..Sint,. Certain.finidamentakquestions must be raised again andaddressed toibegin the Gq end C°u ty of San Ftmtiw° updatet excise;FTow muchtmoney Is available?How much will different projects `Mm*Dsa ytir and pro ams cost?How;can we involve'more of thetBay'Area public in , c. '6wceonn' - decisio ?Arid Where can we=reaeh agreement and consensus? . . 'Donau M.Giampi°f -. - USO. rt✓'t-Tna,.nSn •• This memo discusses(sorne of the'ingredientS,fOr developing the new Plan and • some of the outstaading;considerations as we head toward adoption in November, ' Mary g 2001... .Mara Cory • . Snaifau9 •. Financial'rAssumptions " °°'"" ' Perhaps oneofthe'most:'complex tasks,is getting a good fix on just-how much Sx dinpeae.. e - Gta.af Mi®Cmpry. money will",6e;available over the next•25°:years to apply"to-future transportation *.Mt sa aR. investments:.We start with a review of all the.different funding sources`that were .04 -tion,can,q considered in the 1998 RTP and then add sometnew'candidates. Of the,various- - Oa,*nta Polo;:a. federal, state land local revenues, many are,committed,to ongoing projects or aaaritnan of a °° �"°° programs,othersiare directed liy,formula,and others are directed by the voters. P.Sabin The-majoI sources"of money that'will be considered'in the.financially constrained S.Fn°eaa Mapr'a App.. portion of the Plan are federal (STP/CM? Q and discretionary transit funds F "rdil;ti (section 5309)), state(RTIP andifIP), and regronal(prlmanly rail extension ° m°" reserves from'bridge'tolls): ]amn Pi Spe.ing .' - • Set',Cmny u'E Grin As in;,pastRTPs, wehave'to'make reasonable growth assumptions-for each . ica tr fNntei - . Nap Cavity=dada source, based..on�historical data.as well as reputable Projections'••prepared by . i^ Siaa°a wvg* ; others` If the`revenue.assumptions are tooxobust;we maymot be:.able to•fund ron'C°"° and certain,cntical ro ams down,the line but if the:assum tions!are too P 1'x P Harry raea a conservative; we maybe forced to make choices that are,not necessary.'We.have sun usna I:Tth 5A Z • generally gone with the liistoncal irend line for most revenue,sources. This strikes • a reasonable;balance,j articularly since!recent revenue growth�has been on the more robust side Which,sets a higher base"against'-winchilonger term historical Laws nue D Da a rates;are applied. Thetable, Attachment 1, outlines our assumptions and the, revenues generated (de-escalated revenuesran )costs will,be provided): Steve Hen a:ger. - - - u . • f 1 . MAR - 5 2001 e IIP Paget' • Bay Area Partners Additionally, thenextRTP will identify=new projects and progran*thattould be envisioned if lrtain e of, ew fu consurces were to gain voter or legislative approval;during the:RTP certain types.of rib*as as,con ideredwith the work'begunin 1999 onfthe Transportation Blueprint for, the 21s`'Centuryt While;federal planning requirements restrict their.use in preparing a . • :financially.'constrained,plan, these revenues would provideneeded resources`for delivering; imestments;tfiat are widelyacknowledged"as being desiratle.for"the,Bay Area and its constituent ` " " counties,but forwhichithere is no current-authorizing:authority. These are also shown. inAttachinent I. • Cost Assumptions. We have asked the CountyyCMAs,together with,the•Bay:Area'transitoperators and Calti•ans,to update the.costof van m' ous;projects the,RTP"These costs will be escalated'to an appropriate • nud-point of construction by MTC in a second iteration:.'We also°request ti atCMAs update any , • Blueprint project costs they wish to be.donsrderred in the expanded portion of the Rif that; ::addressesunfiindedipmlects." ' - • . .. = 4- ' MTC first'assigns funds"to differentongoing"Baseline"transportation pr"ogianis The"Baseline'.'• refers tofiinds which continue to.,flow;into the region's transportation coffers for specified. • purposes,"such as dedicated funding,for transit operationsandsub ventions?for local roads,as; well,as-projects'in'the adopted•STIP=and TIP, and which are"not available for re-assignment to , ,other purposes (Attachment`3). MTOthen eshmatesyunfiinded_costs for,the follow-iagrtypes of Programs,and proj eats: •, Transittcapital.replacement•shortfalls, based on preliminary information provided by the. transit operators and MTC'sTransitPinancePlai Model; thetransit.fmance:shortfalls7are subject to further-review and'revisionby the'transit operators • Pavement maintenance shortfalls for local streets?and roads Theselestimates'are derived,. . from MTC's pavement management system and are subsequently divided into'shortfalls on theMetropolitan Transportation System(MTS) and non-MTS toads based on mileage • System-Management pregrams,iii which MTCis directly involved;as an operator, or co- operator,;such'as Freeway Service Patrol,freeway call boxes„signal management, . . TransLink®, TravInfo®,regional ridesharing,commuter check,etc. (Attachment ) ' Regional Set Asides+(Attachment 4) R re are a,number of programs Whioh MTCbelievekliave regional;benefits or;which are most efficiently:administered at the regional,leyel.,AM rn the 1998`RTP, these`programs are generally 'accounted for first, and then theresiduat funds are assigned to the various counties:The • programs are discussed individually, and,any:changes•to their treatment,from.the 1998 RTPaare. noted below: . . '• , e, `Transit capital,rehabilitation shortfall':Based on the latest,analysis, and the;fact thatthe RTP is being extended to.cover a 25 year tine-,period,the shortfall is projected to — ----- Page•3 . Bay Area Partners increase.By the same token„revenue is also projected to increase. To calculate the capital - •rehabilitation shortfall,MTC excludes any projects that'are expansion oriented, as these will need to compete for+funding with other projects in the financially constrainedportion of the RTP. In addition, due to the magnitude of the BART capital shortfall, we have excluded BART'-s seismic:program and deferred replacement of some rehabilitated A/B • cars;this,is•similar to howBART's shortfall was treated;in 1998.R TP. Five transit operators have.projected capital shortfalls, totaling$2 31 illion. Operator Preliminary Shortfall - BART $1::2 billion . Mimi $472 trillion . Caltrain” $120 million Golden Gate Transit . ., $419 million. Vallejo Transit $48 million • In the 1998 RTP the Commission established•the goal of 100% funding for.the capital - rehabilitation seeds;of,the region's transit systems(although the final Plan left a$200 • million shortfall for BART). With the exception of BART, as mentioned above, all transit'capital shortfalls can be fully funded the 2001 RTP. In some counties, `particularly San Francisco that must help cover three transit'operator,shortfalls,this limits • the-amount of discretionary funding;available for other projects.;In order to change this 1 outcome, one or both of the following'options could be pursued: (1)MTC's attempt to• i . " . develop a Transit MTS•based either on a geographically defined network or transit- - capital Scoring.criteria could form,an alternative basis;-for choosing which transit rehabilitation needs to fund; or.(2)unfunded transit capital shortfalls could be placed in the Blueprint portion of the RTP with other,unfunded needs to serve as an advocacy • platform to'secure new revenues. We seek comment and-participation from our local partners and?interested public stakeholders:onthese:or other options over the coming months. • Local streets and:road maintenance shortfalls: MTC.sets aside an amount of funding equivalent-to maintaining MTS local streets and roads pavement (about'8% of the non- NITS'local road system). In the 1998:RTR MTC also set aside 5%of the funds to cover the pavement shortfalls oa,non-MTS streets and roads,as well as 5% of the funds for non- pavement maintenance items (e.g..street lighting, drainage,landscaping;etc) and bridge: repairs. In this!RTP,,MTC,will notisetthis money aside (the non-MTS pavement shortfall is'estimated.to be $1.8-billion), but rather encourages the counties to choose how much funding they should-allocate to these needs•given other potential claims on transportation O funds within the individual counties. System M • anagement and Customer Service-Programs: Generally;MTC has not assumed any increase in_service,levels for these programs.Any funds set aside will cover shortfalls in the basic programs, after accounting for all available,revenues. For signals, the regional set-'aside creates a new, stand alone program.available to local signal • • • • Page 4 Bay Area Partners operators to periodically re-time the 5,500 traffic;signals.in'the region.,SMART corridor type projects;and other types of arterial-improvements would need to!be•identified by the • CMAs assumrngtthat the bulk of the-funding ng illl be supplied by ,the SHO Pt and rah the-region will _ match these funds once they m through RTP sources:;Specific:program choices; such as°funding the Caltrans.Traffic Operations System,have not been made. • • _ • Transportation for Livable Communities(TLC):and HIP (Housing Incentive Pro grams): Based;onthe wide ranging popular support for these programs that,develop;new links - between.transpoitation investments.and community based,projects,MTC proposes to triple thesize of the program in the next-RTP, claiming additional federal funds. Of the • total program size, MTC'is recommending that we take 2J3 for a regional set aside:and, - direct'1/3':to the counties for:usein funding locally selected TLC planning and+capital. projects. MIA Planning-funds: The source of federal funds.for CMA planning and operations is continued throughout the RTP timeframe. A;major effort will be devoted to defining the next Regional Transit Expansion Program that will • replace the Resolution 1876 rail agreement.To adequately:fund this"program,MTC will dedicate_ ,allthe federal New Starts funds-expected to be available to the region'after the;BART extension to SFO is;fullyfunded•, sufficient,Bus and Bus;Facilities,Program`revenues to fullyfund the Express'Bus system capital component proposed in the Blueprint Phased Implementation Plan; and the uncommitted portion of the Regional;Measure 1 Rail Extension Reserve revenues on the regional side of the fundh g ledger: These revenues will:be'combined with other committed revenues to developLa new program that will serve as the'basis of the region's futureadvocacy efforts at the state and federal level (see more discussion below). • Revenues Available to Counties (Attachment 5). After the regional.set asides:are accounted for, the remaining federal.and state funds are assigned at the county level. State funds (RTIP) are assigned based on existing formula using population and lane miles. State Interregional funds (ITIP) have not beenassignedto the counties,but it is assumed that-they Will be'used to match RTIP;funds ona dollar,for-dollar basis,for Governor. (Transportation Congestion Relief Fund—TCRP)projects for which there are!outstanding shortfalls. Any remaining ITIP funds will be assigned to existing.ITIP projects in the 1998 RIP. Federal fundsare pnmarily ST? and:CMAQ.Because itis':difficult'.to"make decisions in advance about how these two fund:sources:will be utilized in the future,-we have combined them into one federal program. As MTC receives projects proposals.from the+CMAs;for inclusion in the RTP, we,will be assigning fun"d,sources to different.types,of projects;and conducting a "`reasonableness"check.on the uses,of these;fund types. Subsequentdetailed:programming criteria will be needed, as in the'past, to more precisely define,the uses of STP and CMAQ funds for each new federal fiinding cycle under the,next federal reauthorization program. • Page 5 Bay'Area Partners The sum total of these sub-allocated revenues to the nine counties.totals about$6.4 billion- The Track 1 funding targets for eachicounty are contained in the attached charts. Blueprint Revenues Available.to the Counties(Attachment5) ' Attachment,5,identifies new Blueprint funding sources available to counties. These include a . TCRP.rollover providing various fund sources,according•to allocation formulas;stipulated in AB 2928,:10 cent regional;gas tax, $1 bridge toll surcharge and rollover or new transportation sales taxes.,Regarding new revenue sources,we divided these into two categories: regional and local. Taken together,these revenue sources present a reasonable and achievable upper,ceiling of potential new funding sources for the Bay Area. The local category consists of continued transfer of the sales tax on gasoline to transportation(as was part of the Governor's TCRP strategy,but due to sunset),rollovers of the existing county sales taxes for transportation and initiation of new taxes in counties that have not yet accessed this type of funding (e.g. the four North Bay counties). The regional revenues would consist of an extension of the dollar bridge toll surcharge for seismic retrofit,($2 7 billion).as well as a 10 cent regional gas tax'($9 billion). We have • O assumed in ;our financial foredasts that BART's unmet seismic retrofifprogram would be funded from a new property tax. • In practical terms, these divisions•suggest that the counties could develop programs for an additional amount of revenue equal to these new sources.,From the regional perspective, MTC would, after further input, assign regional gas tax and bridge tolls to new programs deemed of high regional value and profileand which might gamer a,suffrcientpercentage of voters to pass . and legislative support to be approved_This could include,filling"gapsin the regional transit expansion agreement outlined below. The New Regional.Transit'Expansion:AWreement Because much of the original Resolution 1876 regional rail agreement has been achieved, it is now.time to start thinking about the next generation of transit development for the Bay Area. p This`nextsgeneration could include razl;and ex Tess bus services,depending on different mobility needs in various regional corridors, and depending on fund availability. To start the public process for consideration of new-ideas, MTC has devised draft criteria for the rail and bus components: Several rail projects have recently.received strong state commitments in the Governor''s'TCRP'program and in two county sales tax measures approved in November 2000. Other projects may bee submitted by the CMAs and transit operators for consideration with the new criteria= later than,the deadline for submission of the RTP candidate projects by May 25, , 2001. Express,bus projects are currently being solicited for delivery with TCRP projects. Like the rail program,MTC has developed criteria.for selection of these projects using$40 million in TCRP funds to seed the initial system,through bus acquisition. We encourage.the CMAs and transit operators to propose regional express bus projects for inclusiorrin the,$40 million solicitation, • • Page 6 Bay.Area Partners • the RTP or.both(availability of operating funds will be a crucial consideration for both rail and express bus expansion projects). • Public Review of CMA input into the RTP. Between now.and the end.of May,there will be considerable discussion on'many fronts about the desiredset of projects for inclusion;in this RTP, update:If is clear that the 1998 RTPincludes a • number of projects•that have a certain,amount of public consensus and that:the'consensus needs to be reconfirmed for their inclusion in this RTE. Some of these projects originatetfrom local sales tax measures and need supplementalfunding,while others are welLadvanced in the planning and environmental review,but have not yet made it into the:5'•year TIP•funding program for the Bay Area.We expect that the CMA process will lead.to an honest and open. review of these prior commitments. - We also anticipate that there will need to be some extra effort applied by the.CMAs in•reaching - ' • out to the public as the CMA meetings will be the first review of the candidate RTP and Blueprint projects.,While this process does not necessarilyy mean developing a brand new outreach program,it'does mean ensuring that•a healthy cross,sectiowof the,public,is aware of,the. key decisionsthat are being made and have'access to the CMA,review process:We would therefore hope process is prominently_featured in CMA newsletters and on web sites, andth a that the a Minority populations,can become involved;(MTC will supply our that low moome and, list,of coataets in,these communities). • MTC will also be posting the CMA meetings on its website:and bringing to the CMA process - the resultslof various telephone polling'and,focus;groups" It'is hoped that this input will provide a; broader context for the CMA recommendations based on expanded coverage.of Bay Area issues and transportation interests. The CMAs should also be aware that MTC is conducting twaongomg working groups in areas of strong-interest to the general public and environmental community..The firstis:a performance - • measure working group to develop measureswhich'can be used,to test the effectiveness of various RTP investment options against,the'five major RTP'goals (mobility, equity,_ environment, economy,and community vitality):'The second working,group is designed to assist MTC with thenext•Equity Analysis:of the RTP and includes representatives•and advocates.for - • low income and minority communities'As you will MTC has specific obligahons•under, the most recent federal planning.certification report to consult with these representatives to develop the new equity analysis" As a subset of the equity issues,MTC is working with a - subcommittee ofthe Welfare to Work committee and Environmental.Justice working group to define a"Lifeline Transit" system that would address transit service;issues for those that are most in need of this service. When defined,the Lifeline.Transit System would,place a claim on RTP revenues similar to those of other projects. Finally, theEnvironmental Justice working . group is.also'advisiag MTC on our outreach'efforts to these,communities. 70 - - _ • Page 7 . Bay Area Partners Overall Schedule. • We highlight;below the major milestones in our overall RTP,schedule, leading to adoption in November 2001: Track.1 Revenue estimates to CMAs: February, 2001 . RTP Kickoff Meetmg February„27 at MTC . Polling and Focus Groups: (March-May) . Performance Measures for RIP:May, April _Equity.Analysis'Methodology::March CMA meetings: March-May' Proposed RTP and Investment Alternatives from-CMAs: May 25, 2001. Draft RTP and Ea:;mid-August Draft Performance Measure and Equity Analysis: mid-August Second round of public meetings:-September-October Final RTP.and Ea: November OThe 2001 RTP update will be a collaborative effort MTC, our partners agencies and the general public. I hope this letter describes our assumptions and expectations for this effort. If you;or your staff have any questions or comments regarding the RTP,please call Doug Kimsey, RTP'Project Manager, at 510.464.7794 Sincerely,c eve,Heminger Executive Director O i J0 s a', x0 N IN i ^ Tr 0 w. i ';° ' • w 1 .,r 1 1 3 is t i v u i . Ch mN m y g a ' •• a,- 1 y •w 1 I O e u 1• _ �V q u ' u" I � U o � U . U .ti a p • y G o i p u I .2 2 y . u cd pp 3.O,N'm'0. CO O 1 N AA N O O el O! 7 g o •d F 77C !�c F+ � .�G, L:. Cp 'r?Q ° o. d 0i O A m O g I,o W 'm I 'a. .z . • ) y. 0. e u 10. •� N m N rti N' i � N >p u Of y � E e L. �Q• 2 'cQ�up!`�l.� a� aft ( $pp u.2 . 1'0 � o 3 - a . w1 �. 0 . 9 C • . q.•. I 'CrJ. p u u u gira 2 « . o . �.Fo . N tag ( N 5,0,4 m a 8 ' N N I 4 ! 1 ., N 1 w < ' (11 -2, u 6 p •o Q O is 4 o m p o °m C 2 a0 ` g,gz PAZ A z I i :. . - I a • e = E 40� _L °m o g g N u I •i 4, i i 1 t i y � I' I 1 I rO .9 I"C: -G A I4 G CO - t G I ° .� .41.1 tu at 0 i �. :.� -� i �s r (a ,ice �I �g 1 N N I N I .+H �y I H .41 1 w y I 'O 'O 1 q I I �W,. C t 03, a u N I p °• I w ❑to u Ui r « I « N � ° u ' .5 °p 7, .r F•C u m 1 N. 0. O Y •pN�; .P ' 11'3 „ p • . w ' ' L N y TU > U k. 0 W• 00 � t) O 5 N 4 j/' O N G0 M '° i b a. to Wm a a o b a o 0 • a +` ° �— '6 • . b . � 0 0 ,. u � o � mb 6 yup0+. b 9pm 3 ; 9p 3. . °CyQ mom • Vyl m G1 o T uC�p�. �r.s 1 ko�u�. .E (.pW�p�. -1g3 '_ gi N bL 2..8 GI cc • S . Fwd Fw4 'i F. L' '6Cq$ RI "�� . °� s Qt. r v _ -co Opp CO �'. rn GI 1mr 11. �,'� a. w. m m . i p o° 'a >.. (D'a T.01 ° L1�.i 3 0. vv❑❑ o • - 1 F'w; °0 6..n 1 W -a tr. a �,t W ,' 'vi_m a �.wy, h CQ p.,�' .. > C17 I( 1 i I E , I i9� i I g e; ':•w I .0 o I •a 9 c,5 0. l ° ( t ,°° �' a o. XI w ° E v o oo u O a M 1 40 I a = ,.,1 i I [Q g o,Ot a ^ 1-4 I 1 S _N u 6. OF O d g . ... : Ix.` vtN S ,§'.vxi^IU Ix ! _ .- i S. vj . j' • t.I . it - I. I. • i ° 7.3.,dC �. o 4 , to I I A ro \ 13. 13 Y. Tarn I E u �i . I .. .2. ( n •TLN , _g I 'm i - 1.° i i o _o ( � 03�° Y . g I ° \. 0 i 0 m r. t ° 7.5'i. m ° ° ,J i. 1 a 19 "6“. 1 I d a. rn '�. I. i _r I a •� 1 ■ H , _ o m . w 'r.' i e'er a c o Ii w u, i� �....,I IL,1N a. U rn u.r°. „ I w i v w F °t � F' `� °` q ib a o t;� Via . ict ^ � a a is� o t~ ;m - .0 ° n : w. 1 a w• • °. vh to rN cn I ._ aa I !* U U rGIrnQa : rnQa . .. . .- ... I ._...... _ .. .. .. • a,?i I , aa� i a' ` ° a o. I a .� C i.a i o. - :a H �. �. ryry 0 1N M . ,.0 IN M q. ` C tT ..j C O O C' -: N 1 H 4, :FW :e;;Hf Vf co.1 ;f9 V! i e 1 -- a a. { �, .6v6�E�. .N o p • l o p �1 o a i • I O is - .I O . O i s O' .+ p : .a d t p al . • I " ° g ',It ill H v ° •8 ufw 00 g' g:`d,o ! c°i rid a v � ;$ ! ++ Lou .,o o a m t .a u I:� a. uao ai k`.' al','4.4" m '�'° 'm '� 01 .0 p . ! 3'o 'o: r3 S ;r3 0 J 'a •° se U y w°.•�Fjw w 'q al.w°•c`°_. ,?• Q ,'� I las.a', °t`t$ 1 5'o m F'o i'a. 1:0 w o o.� 2' ''� "72.-6", u . U w°.. i c°. .`� I c- , ....• i• g 21' u, 3 I u u i u u_ al, u 'O A u u .E 0'1- .- b �, C',� • ` .. t °u o v a� o" �i' o �3 a if °:ate o ,I '3 �� °�. i a 0 a5 i 7 g g19 m � u ''8 al,- a u m a. y m m •o` S� u F:$ 'u po b u , v •8 c ° fa m '.�° :a a r.0 ti al a.>:'.9°, S}i' (i( a a E•p> j m o :14,: b �;. • Co m °(o ( y ° o�i m ;-o. . 1 O� 1Z, g N •b 1 3 l: �'d S 1 -„ Q'a 1 t ° a'` 0 ° a I :• 3 -.3;,:,. o v ° ` ry aya p $ m4 ,.. � w p.r v d ov d.! of d: - 2 0 .g o n vi ci bF .5 u' . O - E g oo E 9 f, E c, Ego a ° 2 w v •a ., � p. 'n `1' . Igo B, p c°v m P`#nFa m L` 6° H t i•&1n'O ., a °o � �'mi .1 °o''„ m' o y ' ..n., RIB i73 u b mI+C u •o o "= -0 u m u '.� m Q ' :; U u. � IU e, m U u .� C ca u' C a , v � "C m ° ° a oo^i F tat o .;'a °, p � t ° a d CC o.r5 `� CI m ;$ � m m ' ii 3'.S ,a-72 m1 t,.. • •E 2.2. a a,..: O IiJIil ' 'Of : 'a� '� I.•i o u`.g. e°o o � w° o U y o i�,a; .°.+"b 1 N a c,o u a. b ? N , 'uo �.-a,oao °0:'A 3o'vN'-1UN �;v U,� ma' UNw N ; UNU. 1 del.) i g € 0. , g; 1 a u to L _ e `Y • a. p.� t III H' I c c ,.I. o o. Im ��.' o, �� 1 5 i a o1E ta O 1::j N ! 1 6 • w 1..5 af'.p el sM:a: i, 2-° 2 o �Q a.; o Q0 9 IFS _ s, d t ;" t, 1 Q 0.. l -gT•O “ i 4. U * j uU 1 ° h, .% mC 1 a• Fn11 I C Cal I.=,.,3. 0 � ,° 1y. ygm�+ , W. 0. iCt '3 ° . , . D, p o , � 1m I N t .�m .n: aEi i F:."' l FV., y' I o F .F a. `,�. u r b t. 1aL,.ai`nl 'O o, i �� u oIdi' o ",'x:2 < ,v. 11m . la F° u.::0 ' � i x , A ea , - . t i 1 I o v X i; - I . I �. . Fq. °' a Iv a.o 0 °—� • • I I. - - ( °o, ' e Ri ,o I.o 1 =o I ^ a. L It^ a in • 41� i..- ," la I. , 10 �' ., ..ttn ell- l dl�c IEO. a i'0..°' la i. - - IAA YA i C-1 !% Ito 'ia v': ':u. o ? of I NI 1pa •II ••tip . b - •m IlN . r i 1 .0-: .. m _ 0. O i � `e. I��yyj x t [. I � O Y . 14n. CJGm * .1. �:, d to is1 m iW 'yA 12iu a - - G'' 1 'v 2 I SC9 .= o e a� o ol d ti u i • 4,.01,•4,1•; I : a W.+:-C q 1tl I',=.1'°°1'‘:4 y O, g I > g ,8 . - C r f C S a I � 0a vi d;• u r u7 'e 6 la ml m o :air U. o -y iG • i > tttfti ; ' ' _ .• G6' Yi 1-,g m .2 uced - gw',ai-ail I i o �` 1 i t' 1 E i 5 . E'± ° 'n I to., I ��// U I.L , h I fL O(. - W ,E1 1Q Ir' O, iq ,. opp..• 11H N I of•F _ .. j' m y 6 i -0 in 10 ,.i v, a i;OOFyan I C t w •l•'k"• - .W; C i .. 0:r Iy i ..0 u t �. 73 .C4 WS 1 I I I I.• d CO i . u A A A?o I tls ol l; i p o al p i'. I't , I. I y .p. m o b d •a a > .p'.,.'. i', I . C v v l H ? j 1 -o P v O� F F . ; 1 a •o ' 0Gu I d. .7 d V 0. F.= , V d .... IF . r • • ' • • I I I I; . I I I. i I L. - I - •❑ y O j0, I . O 1 .2 Ift.2 !'.'��•' �, I � 1 O • y I 1.a 4,, a i .o ' a ti'o I o, I a ! a 1 a 'el - Ur I'� I �. O- ' 0 O I'N r1 N O i b .N ' I I I Ot i'N I O I Np: .�:- . . fn • -I C, -. 1 0- ! — T I T SN P" h III. 7 rn I C " I � I Y ' _I ._ I.�.4 Y H . - OI .a E E p CA I ('9 11 ' i 5 9 'I I !L'' !'w ° ° i I • � ?. C ,Ii 11 Y o p r o o.w o iu. 1 13( 0. I GY U V .pp j, 1:to a �. ' . q: `,. I I v: . • N m u I.G� �. �; 1 v_ w, I a °v!' w• I m ��a]] T Y I.'p 1 C?.p y pr.•_.-o I p i 'O, , �. C. I I;N iN N, N, y OCI. M 1 arnim 'J v..m '.Yy'� ?..10 co • �/ Y 1'N. N 104 N': 1 0 `� � Y 'O. p Y .'V O Y I ❑Y . O\ z! ' 1 Q Q 1 c 1 -C 1 m N'i I.,'�� -,(4,,,,....; c b0.-0i.$ > 1 cu L I W '8 I w W Y 4" e1 .0 C O O Y ' I it s 1 > F �>' F i 'Sr-4( '- 1 > F 1 i 2:Y 'a' Y I'b > F I 0 a I o a o o w, i o r4 5�� • ,e on w m °.q m,. . °.°•. _ r O: mil' IL-. Lea, .°. o,_ • I2a. • .' oc _"Io q ;,.0 U,:"Y .2 . 1CoY & M �l - .�_ Cl) I . C N ° N1 '-'k r4 1 to eyll I m▪ O d I E:00% a 61- � of �. 0I ., N' �- cCpp I I E. td O C� O w,.y C �O.c C C i5'�1: p �. G I <' Ti I N v�N1 N I b0 l' `; '�,p0 �, bl O y I • •�f.. I G.\ 6\ G'\ j .O,, II! WQ{I� C ;1I'_ I Y'. TN I N`• N I ,p l e . 1 6 ? Q..?•: i "C.o.', I Q V I F• Z '"ta I'C.) el�t '- 1.o N W '.N Q,OV 1 1 y0 I' i I I , a+. I . I y I ! I • ..• b i I o 3 ten U1. E .• v O;q) I '0 I w.•_ ,V .D. . I 201.2-g 10 0 - Ir I - i Ile Ls .Y I § i . -, .O Y:., I ° m •11 I. 1 o R s Y. g I I Ca 1 i. at . m10 I ;� iF E_,ii ijo .Y.. Ie �,N I' o I .^ bM ( 03 >". Ia° • 1 XI L �` ' a IU u 1 2 _ IrIH' I 1 lU FI rn Y 1 a NCq• U °— � 'a. 'I O b, I • 1'l4i' m 1 m 6 a o I I ��y � I v -8' f ' p � T I. I ! I C 1g, ' I 0 ' C vt . W � Y o '+' '. '? I o ° y • I - C p O c 1ee ;! b. ' y Y I Ti m p o O I❑ .. • �?�? '.: g w i U l " aN d -, 1 *5 c CG yY Y U 'I �O i Q C F I a v liiu , ' c c, c q, ]] y G 4D N° u o ° 33 o V w• • • • • • • • • • • - • • 2 • • • • • .- • • • • tp • • • • 0 • • • • _ Attachment 2 System Management Program - Financial Assiunptons.. - - • • Freeway Service.Patrol - - Assumes a baseline FY.2000/2001;tow service that includes 28 beats generally:operating 3-hour morning and evening shift's:, After FY 2010/1 1, all operating costs are escalated at a rate-of 3%per-year while capital costs_are escalated:a0%per year with a staggered capital investment cycle ,Assumes„a 5-year lifecycle;for capital(in-vehicle,,base station ! and telecommunications)investments. FSP maintains a 6-month operating reserve. ' ' Assumes non-RTP/local match revenues of State FSP through FY 2025/26`and SAFE funds through FY1010/111. Over 25,years,,about 24%of FSP'sTunding comes from RTP . sources. - - - _ . _ -• Assum s that the`:bulk'of'finding di or Freeway O erahons Str for FreewayOpecations Strategies would;beaupplied by the state and:that the region will match these funds.once they are made available through the.SHOPP:or other nontItTP sources While the:Caftans Traffic Operations System°,(TOS)would be,eligibleLfor this finding,specific program choices will be _ , informed by the Freeway Concept.of-Operations study currently bemg;cbnducted by i ' Caltrans, CHP,'and MTCrwrll rovide recommendations for how to commit the funding ad- dito whom:The;$65,millio inthe'RTP is aplaceholder forthese concepts. TransLink® -. .: - • - - .-, ; MTC has a 10-year contract build, operate,:maintain) with Motorola. Capital estimates (escalated at 1:3%) include development;installation, cards; equipment and , 10%capital contingency(after:FY 2002/03). Assumes a 7-year equipment replacement. . cycle. Operating includes 1.3%escalation for operating(all!services,in the Motorola implementation contract). Assumes;a 2-month operating contingency cost, covered through STA reserve. Non-RTP/local match revenue:assumptions includeSTA Regional Discretionary,funds (covers fixed operating costs),transit operators(covers variable operating costs)andTransLink®revenuesi(escalated:at3% after TY 2010/11). Over 25 years;;about 22°4 of TransLink®'s finding.comes`frontRTP,sources. RTD/Tnp-Planning Capital estimates include equipment,(PCs,.servers, etc.), software, licenses and royalties and assumes'-a 4-year equipment replacement cycle: Operating estimates include RTD/TranStar;user and system support; GIS baseman maintenance and-frame•relay serviceagreement. All costs escalated at3%„Assumes a 2-month operating,contingency cost, covered through STA reserve. Assumes revenues of STA Regional,Discretionary (covers 50% of total.program costs). Over 25 years, about 50% of RTD/Trip Planning funding wouldcome from RTP sources.. - Regional,Transit Marketing/Transit Incentive Program Operatingestimates include transit marketing,operating transit incentive program, regional,transtt$uide and RTC program. Assumesf3% escalation.of operating costs. No ,, inannn1 19 operating contingency assumed. Assumes;revenues of STA Regional Discretionary • (covers 50Gb of.total program costs). Over-25 years,-about 50%of Regional Transit Marketing/Transi't'Incentive Program fundingwould come from RTP sources:- - Regional RideshareiProgram; Capital estimates,include ndematching system and`tiansit ui-station information system. - Planning and:capital assumes a 5-year.replacement cycle(3%;annual inflation): - Operatmg expenses includes contract serrvrnces>and escalated,at3% afte%FY'2003/04, Contingency is 2 months operating cost. Assumes TFCA revenues=(TFCA fundingifrom Air District appearsffairly secure at this time)thiough,FY2010/I1 Regional Rideshare Program'intends to seek CMAQtf nding beginning:FY 2003/04,to simplify MTC grant- • i y 80%of Regional Rideshare Program funding would adrnini trahon,Over 25 ears;�about 80 come`from RTP sources: . • " ° - . TravInfo®: MTC has a:6-year contract(de "sign,build;operate;maintain)'with PB*Farm yne., •••" Planning includes technical assistanceand"performance monitoring. Capital includes data‘fusion,;data dissemination and data,collectiOn itssume&a'4-year,;capittal replacement • • " cycle eCapital costs,escalated.at 3%with'a.4-year replacement'cycle,,Operating-includes; telephone�operahonsand maintenance, traveler information center operations;and - :marketing: Planning'n and p 3% afterF,Y2010/1~1 Contmgericy: '•' Operating costs escalated�at is 2=months operating:cost Over;25 years .about'88i'5%of Travinfo®funding;would . . _ 'Conte:from RTP aou ces. S:lSection\TCA\PiereCWiriancial Planning\Master Copy\Assumptons.doc. • , . , C . • r .. al. •° d v 0 d •. •• N .. C. :: , C, • •• L �+- • • . f� •0)- ,- CU' :o c - U. •• R c�8 •° Y/ ww, - EA = 4•• �'. :°' . • _ . _ d . . • E' d 1 . ee e>•� f •S �' ® W>, in ..was. ., • ` v . °.c a s.° Y/ ° Asp •M `" (0 > >I eo .® L °® s• ® 1,.. E •• O L ® an ::'. CO 0 �2. •' . -o.,� �.= C. •. 'ca m ++ ® = O 01 O •• L > C 0 ,f - O.• 01.. ••• a >, u) �. w � c� n : liana p 0 C I i I I I , •• ng - .4.... I— C •• . .• V . 40 I0 • ,c. • , .• c k . . - - . C - t. a - . - - • a3 - _ - e•. 0; - . . Ira . a '•• 'liar ei of + •• i. r'. ® 0 CO •. 43,) •. •• r • . C, •• .P. •• ..• r> CU w: ;, . .. 'Ce) I is Ce 70, •a 4) 0 O .. A�. .r r e.9 ,®' s. - .0 - .,o •o - ••• a3 . a• •41••• • •. ' •a •▪a •• • • • • . CAI• • •• A, 1 oe e® •e ®' rm 1 ee ® 03 fa bre'• .. ® O .. o•' • r 0• • •• 0 a e• �e e® Y rly :. f i •eF I t N .sad �MI e• �� se r si .pro �Ay OO ® v �� .. •e e r =Cri p,... V 2 o• • r 4ifx.,ST 4••• 11 e• . .. r •x� 1'J' 1 pdf< 1 i• ' _ J •e ..W- < •�, r 4f.: �' I 5 !.• ! R .fir 7. -, o• it b 1 Y Fa „ I' •) . e• I r S -.,,.9,41'..'. 2 �bj • 00 � �e .� S. C - flL 4 U .'i 1 ®®1 s r 'i 1 1� 1 a 1 ger d •i A r�S-, SZ '4 _< • _. ■ • ® do L'o� `�V � 'iarl e, '3 ;q�+ '° -tir'+x "b � •4y ' : ■® .'�•e f t e l .ras .�. ?3 t r . f Ir} �j. r Yr; l� eo �� i1- L y. , ti9 1 . i� r i 47--T y 1� d'Y iy� i iv.---•. .4..rl t , d •e ....... •M4 5 < r ..,;3:1...'4. fal rti: •• :.�hp`'� r r{. �• t tia < F J.� •'P es ee• o s m �•ef o• � p, • • •o 0, • ion cv s r. e• .. • - • . • S • . . . . . . . • . . - ' .5 • . • , • ' a- VI , • . . - .•• . 1.. ... . . • - . . ii ti) ii) - . tialtiTh , , • _ ._7. • ... , . LEMNOS .4 I .0 r■ ': 11= a cn 12 MCI ii ..., I CD , i• C0 ..' 10 •. .. . . . -,S An 02■11 , , ignia 'MOMS •• ma An: 6" - , ON 111211111, •9 1.1r911 . . . . ' 01■11 . •0 • . . . Ci3 0.0 in ..„,. - - , _ ._..•• . CO- • • . — - • > °• - (i'-• ., co ••, • al •, -..' i420-: • , . imonsi .. , , , •e 43) a '-- -- = • • . I-• 0 Ca •0. -,_ . • ' ' 0.111 ■;;:..ti = 8 a,.0 a. . ' . 44, i Mi - • as • - se" . .C- ],.. ■ ' , . rbs, .., C . • "iii! .' . . ' . .1:1 . • . ..... 0. . . . . a • 0 : = ;..., : . . ..,.. . ...:4.„:0,...,....s_if. 0. c , . .,,,,i‘•-•Ciajzfrizt „ . -'iiii1 •; es! . C. ,:fit. . il,"; 12 . • I -.. .. . .. . ifilk • . . ... 11/1" WA ini . CD. • • .., .... . • . • •• =..". • _ ORepll, 4„ .-103. ww 9. , • . 0 CO %SE . " " . r ...J CO " • ...... , m .. . INC •,..0 a, - j.:••• . ,a) . ii, A-1p . . . a) • • _1 - •• CD ' I-- - •• •■•, ., _,. . 0 IN 111 e 0 iss0 , , . • visa •C . amin; Mil■•• „ 0., 1.., CU :: .i7,,,,,, ca- . . 1 a sla --- --. - .ta •• • ... , • ' ':....1., .'. q.ti.`,177.':A 1 ME. .1mmi i). 4..a... o - , i'-'7Ift411, ',cu - ._ . ‘ad to CL r•si, . •• ! 2,, cn 1 7 IN 11121121, 0' *I A •i C4- ' cn I_ ,.2 it . . , __, •• _,..•— . — • .• et) r.,-:';:%."‘''.- 15 Tre -D . . . . 0' •D 1150 , . . - -. ,f":":"/.3."..,."'.-.,<1.-: 0% lc,,, :, . CNI X. •• ne....Zo • :.- il.• •• - . •• , •• .0 In 0 In 0 In CD' . vi N, (Mt• 'ER :Ea Et* • • . . . . . • ______.__ •• , . . . ' • . . . 0 - • • • • . . . . , • . . . . . ' • - . . . • • . . . _ . . . •• a •• EFJ- . •• r •• - 0 . • . • •• C. Own •• CV •• f.75::::::::•:-.ir i...-... . . vlima .41 ic...-.-.-,..-;:? .,: Q) • fai •• ......7.0 - s.... CO . . . al" • r-,-:•.":':-.5.1...:- ..= - woe ----;n------'s-41-el • rti'.71-",;:ii."--,-;44 Cn • }-..:.:,..,. ---...1.-it,;c:: a." . C • 04! try,i4i4::::-.'-' .-.::1-.< ••• , .-;1-,V,:-.,':,.'V* ' • tries :sly:R..4C‘'..,L2C:5,I __ .:-... --1•.1 0 - • ww ••• • ,.„:7,.,..i.,:.,:l...,-.. ., • • ••. v:_.....:.:2....2,--2-„,.:71 • en .., gi.L.::...:-.;,.-zz.??..yc. a -...-= CI) — W •• f:',..--:_:.t'::-:. 71--;; ,:.: ' - - ".- ' CD (5 C = XI .• .irti;:j:E;-.T.T.... ., •• PI,r". :--r----..r./. 1 ,1.. i'.' Pi . .Ca Ca. x __I • • •• '':".i.'.-1--.i-L,-4,1--..: . . • 1--;-;'.4.";::--•:-,:z.:-..-,--, r...,...4- -' ' • M CO ill I— t:ric. . c e° Tfii.,,,,,,-4,:..,__;4.:...i, . •• - i?.:7-..,.- ..„-_, _,,--,.. , ...-.. . .........L... - . _ ... 0 •0 lac'ie• '..,:t?i.-."..t,7 }',-.,-"' • •o L.='-•',it. 1. ' •. : . • •... - . ... .1:, ...fl .. ...“..... . ■ . . -1...4. „ . , .. PM •• fr:"...1Z 1.C...!• '....k;". . . • a 0 0 3:.:.'::(‘)-.:-.:17•.`fy 1 • . • , -'Si •• ■,:l.,1.::•,..1:L:.`1;.•:• 4a. • ,.. ..- . : _ • ... . Qiim.. •• -.?.. • -.i.-.c.*i •• - ...?.., gram 6• ' ,.c1:-t.: :..._-.. ... , ., . . • .. ,.,?:-.2;, ,,...:..,:::. n ca. „be •• =4:4,.:;_:...=--:-..--,...; - .,-----,------ - 0 E E nri E CO E •.. 1s.W.-:,(..,:,-c.,-; FR:-.--,..:E.=-2.2::::., < 0 e 0 C, •• ?.?.;..,..:,,,.: ,,.. r.:-1;.., : o en ,._ a c . ea •• Tii.,,t,:..r. , . • ... 4 .15 t>r 0) CS Pisa •• 7:1.7.1-,Ci'S 1:-.:‘..„,-1 ,;.:',:c.‘=-.:-' -7 (13 a oitl wo al a as e 't c_) la •,,, .4.Y..,..1,i,.•.'1.!.. •.".'q.5 ''','.....• -- ...., a a) - > a) 0 .CS 0 ,-, r.“,..4(Pr(0---.-•,.'ili ' esamal •• i-1.•,[.,....---;...21 .::- --t--. Li'', .7-4--• CL) E 0 --a ITC CS E lia •• 1:'•114ifli•-;.----.7 .--;S. .1---..,c. .. -..'. (.0 E co. c cric Cco o room °* FilF::%:::::::,,Eal. .--.:;:-':. ... as I1) la 0 rn -CL • 90 Ivr".1:-....,.7 .:,,,,ts. .:2•,...-:-.-.= -;- ,,_.• = 4 0 a. ,I:J.,. -,vr.':. 4'1:: ii v,..,P.'.. • '.1. I'-' Ct3 I.- al 0 0' c 'j:.--- ':-, '...' Cri (ICI „.., • -I 0• p:-:.1:-;;,rz• --r •-• —, a) E a II aCir'....-C-..1--a.'..,:•111_,..": •0 . :''• - '''' i C M ‘11 a --"" CO m_...C13 411 0 a3 r':::-;;;::.:‘,.,-.71 c) 0 u3 .----.. -t Cn •i . r=.. ' ;',. --cb (.3- .E a 0 U) 0 a . • •, a) 4 .0 s• . . . r.: ..':. :-..f..f:h: 0 I-- (1) ITS —,__ a Ell -i-g5" 2 i •7_L,.-....;..,-=.;....,).. w M co t-- c... co 1— .s a. r e• . . ;'...c':i '"- -....;:i• •0 ,1,.•,:.-:-.:-...,•.--: • • . •• r•-',..‘4,'''' •.,-:-; • 0 0 0 04 " • e • . •• ••• . . •• . . •• • . . • • ' • • • ' • • 6 -- - . . . - •• u) :: E " •• •• ,,,,,,• •• • 1,.. 0) .• 7) . - . 11 -,- o .• V. .I.°_ cLrs co-CO• • CO• CJ r • 0 C, CN.I Lr O C) C ) . ICr -. e,) Us :: Cri a • 'CY Y)C e3- Ce) r a1 '5 Si < e3- ta• .— ea- .. ,4-1 _ . - to3- .. •=3- • . tpe •fin • o e: o en° .4a saw .5 ..... r •• en O 0 • a is II• mus. C•I _ •• we •. , we •• •• . - La so - • ' - 1 • 0 •• E . • . . . •• c0 o.. _ CA .. k- - .. ,• - . • as z , C) :: . u) -a .1-c 0.) 0 • . . . .0 :• * "I • E . a) 1-- '-= C13 I ■' 0) eb- c) .-----:. a) %— .. c c3) co co .. cti o ' ii— co 2--m ,a) • a - • •• 1-- * t srcs .1.• .. = .. 0) , 0 n_ :4.E• 'CD gel 0* 0 "W e C) .,_ m -.7. „?...., C ire • 5., .._,.. 0 t. •• • n ma a) ;.= ..7.--- a) .. p. -a -,..-_. o M ‘ = ** E cm a) Er 'it-- •• C.) a C Q_ a) •• cp a) CL (1) •••••.. 0 03 CI) a) •• to 0 u) co z ® — co cn 01 •. cc/ CI3 Zt r. \ 0- C 2 2 • 3 •.°. >, ›...• a) — -7-. --- cz, • 0:5 co ---. .0..- co :e• .• ,, s ,E) 2 1-.... u) C 0 .S. ,a) > .-t I a S• • • • in . 0 •. ••••9 1.... 'Lt.- %.... F.- LC LI- 1--- las 0 .• U) LL. .• >t Isms a• Cn . 2 •• I,• •• •9 II• ■ ...._ • . U) ss 0 .e s. • oe AEG' • •e G es �! t1 � eo 40 S ie CV e a 10 r C 0 i! Co,' a ' r tO • CAB 4 IC,i - - on .a I"' co � 'CO N I �" ' i C') CO C) j C1 0, .. N N ( r : r .'r r r �'in • 0,.., _ sm . . r CO et c0 ,00 -r tC C'd ' 1` :.. to. CO co, 0, 1 Co N :F .. . CO CO N, .® . ® :.. 6f I ` • i Ne. CN ' "el N N ,. C•11. H e•e .o �. It �'. a3 ' : I V ,�. .Q. . - =® f t, a:', 0 � C.l: 0 ;� - ' 0 .. =, I w! , AIL as a E. ® s. ' )_ _ =w ,V ,_ ,Wk. I,�, . .�. V a . • e vo o '`a C '' �. � �tt C 0 0: OO <. O M. I�Z CO. I Cf) Coy ; �. CI 1i .. • II it . , . , . . • . , • , • . . • . t 1 „ • .. . i .: _ -.• . tn cu, • o , 1-- 1. I . ""' .• c e., 'Cr 0 •• co 4A •• ' '-0' 4".::: . CN' --e. . . ‘riso - o t crs 02)1 ° .* CO' • , r CU —/ I .° Cf) 0" i. •at. 52 el . - . _ .. . —.-s--.-- ,, • , :21.0 re CD "II 0 "; '• ---••• CN no • I ,to to a C 0 o, o - ^-.... , t.n .1..• -,' -a.,... CD e_ = tio■ •• CC/ Cr3 . - rt- - . 0 Cr) te-; flan. Co I o• — •e . . . 4tse 0. • C .. : -,3, . 0, .t. .., - 0 cr) )0 -, c,f, co irip 43,3) .•a .CO G., _ en en. r. •ct• e e . tem " LL.. CO __ .__ n :.• III i cz,) u), ..:: , , , .. 0, CU m ,14. .• e.es, ill illio _c .. . •• lial >rt.9 . • ASO •• . ..,....... . • , Cr) . CD C 9° ..... 9 ZE,-.... a -413 cs4 • • De = .. o• 0 8 , r- 0 ' . -----_- , _7''-`?..3, 9909=9 c CD ' r - o +5 non •• •••- . . •• _ , . e- CSO . Oa. 0• . < C0 •• •• -- , --- = •• . Ilmw r—. • , as; 61 .., ...... ° , ._, A• •°L., Ah,a -■ 40),:' ES • S.MIMI° tA- .. _ Ca ,.... ,. .., • ..= kilt ( ) •e •—• CO , o to I • _0 o• - a b I . i 1 ■ • I ti.1 1 I • vre %Ili_ •• 0• . :.. .. 0 .1 I 0.Id . I , I I IN. •• CI) ,rn, I CI ' 1 • I O• ' CT, ,j,:,i ' ......',I, , I 1 . ISM. . , •0 CZ 0 I , Ca; .• L., .. 0-• i •.--1 1 SI . ..6E d I —.1:Dd .. ..CTS 1 i' —.-'', •• 1 .0 . 0 ' 0 0‘I co ea ,1 (.) ' 0 . I >. ; 1.— . , _ ._ , . . • . _ . . 2g 8 to OD .O OD CvO rf. CO C) CO .CCOO .l N— N COI CV ; Chi C CT) C\1 N--- OD r r•1 r N••• I N- : M <fs. 'I. 69- CND Et E ,:.r N -T=7: - i p; ec= .0 E SS ea-{ 69-1 4:03- N ee f C�3 WI se izimm •• e lt ee I I.I,. _ i. .. ti CO CO.' . CO r— r r CV'.I. I` CO O ' :tO 1/e C'7 ai d` CO' 0) CD t- CD ® O1 tO •® :: N ti U) L0 Wit' C3D 'N 1 CO ;., CO N CO I CO •I we d' 1 CV. 'GA- ' S S N O CV r° COI M_ �' S b9 v- al E E I S- 1 M e> t� , i it " CO ea aV : •• "CI,ee. C _ i C p : I , en so ee f, c$ U a }. U s o o;, : . �,o�, ,, a p , 0- a a C 1 C6 C I .D) ir ee I: ,� _e cu ' CO �c �o 'C^o 1 "3^ twice 0 I 0 •• e e •• •• e s se ea . - • • . ' . . . • O mileal C . ' /4' - ._ , . . .__ u) \ p. 4-) . cn : C . . °• , , i•t +a a H o 5 0 e %/ . . . • ^ L co .-N. C L, 2' '� =; w C o. F. cu Ja C -. . >• CD el . E .� z 0 co =, ai co) a. = . w _ - o . . EL - v ° m E = W N " � C. I n 0 = e cs,EL lira .= O ® 02 ® v — co L _ - . a,. e' m -8 a. ® = EL F3 m 0 - p ,� �.. - 4 e e. • C, ® cV CC ® 0. O • O • • , 0-. . . . • ' 12-i1° •• METROPOLITAN JAM P:&ne MemeCeaaer' • TRANSPORTATION l01,Eighth Sacs . ' Ca :r - . paldanb CA 946071700 • . • : COMMISSION Tel:S10.464.7700 " - -TUD/rTY:510.464.7769 ' Fat S10.464.7848 Memorandum . . TO: CMA Partners • . - . DATE: March 9, 2001 • FR: Executive Director - RE: CMA Public Involvement andthe 2001 Regional Transportation Plan . As we have discussed at,recent rrieetings;,MTC is making'.a concerted effortio ensure that more Bay Aiea residents, including those in`low-income and minority communitiesfcovered under Title VI of : ' . ... the Civil Rights Act of 1964,.have:a voice in the 2001 update to the-Regional Transportation•Plan _ (RTP):As you know, in the:spring of 2000,FHWA and FTA•conducted a triennial performance ''''review cif MTC„and,conditioned its certification of our;plammng process on:an expedited.review of our public involvement activities as well as:inclusion of low Income groupsia the Tide VI equity •analysis of the RTP. Our desire,for improyed•RTP outreach and involvement goes beyond the federal-directive,however- Over the past year's examination,of our public involvement programs,the Commission has consistently stated its desire to reach out to and engage more Bay Area residents in our key • transportation policy and fiscal decisions. Our Commission also has expressed a desire to work more I , • closely with our.partnfr agencies on public rnvolvetnent.Moreover,with respect to project-level ” dialogue, it is abundantly clear that the,ficst and best place for public review and comment is at the • local level: Given the CMAs keyrole in developing candidate project lists for inclusion in the RTP, it is critical that citizens areafforded,an opportunity to weigh,ins prior,to a decision by your policy ' board. . Because of this increasectinterest'and focus on publicparticipation, MTGurges you to ensure that ' your own.agency's public outreach and involvement,with respect to.the;RTP is consistent with the following set of expectations: . 1"- Schedule meetings and widely publicize them—As;soon•as possible,set a,date or dates for one or more meetings in your county, and make a concerted'effort to,publicize your event to a wide range of interest organizations and residents, including groups representing low-income and minority communities.To the extent feasible,these meetings should be timed andlocated to encourage attendance.by a wide:range.of interested citizens(preferably during non-work hours at a public transit-accessibler location:MTC public infonnation;staff can assist you in thiseffort. ' • 2. Provide early opportunities for citizen involvement —Make every:effort to educate and hear comments from',interested,residents and affected stakeholders about,your countyis projects early in your,process,before staff recommendations are made.It is our hope that the RTP discussion in your county is not treated as a"routine" item on your board agenda.. 3.Encourage boardmember attendance at your RTP-related'public meetings'—There is no substitute for a direct dialogue.between interested citizens and decision=makers. Make every effort to c"i Q . CAA Public Involvement in the 2001 RTP • Page 2of2 ' involvenyour boardmembers inyour public outreach.=.MTC Will encourage our Commissioners to • attend their county-CMA,public workshops: . 4.Attend MTC-sponsored workshops in your county:—MTC'will be organizing some 15 targeted • workshops throughout the.region to hear comments from a range of stakeholder organizations, including business,labor,low-income and6minority communities covered under Title VI, elderly and disabled:individuals,housing organizations,and 6the;like:We will invite you•to those meetings we • hold in your county, and urge your active participation in these meetings:,' 5. Consult with Title:VI communities—It is!critical`to make'a special effort to hear comments fromlow-income'and minority communities cove-d;under Title VI of the,Civil.Rights Act As mentioned above,MTC will be organizing a series of targeted workshops_for various stakeholder ' groups;including'Title VI communities We will invite.you to attend these meetings.,However,your -agency should`diiectly seek outthe,viewsand concerns of Title•VI communities,iegarding:candidate projects in your county. 6.Set'the context`in plain;language—lt is criticahto provide,clearly written materialssfor people . not versed in transportation jargon.This material should include a discussion of what play in your county with respectto,RTP project submittals;including any competing alternatives. MTC can • provide•you with'a"tool kie of'displays that set the context for the RTP (similar to what-was used for • Our February 27`workshop in Oakland),and assist m tailoring an,additional display about projects;in - your county. If you are consulting a group whose primary language:is something other,than English be sure to provide for translation services. 7. Consider and comments on MTC'sregional;goals—The RTP sets goals_of enhanced mobility,equity'for system users, economic vitality,community vitality;and environmental quality: _ During;your discussion of projects,be surd to make a connection between the projects and'their .. . 'impact regional goals'for.the;RTP:._. 8. Docnment,yoar process and track=comments—With your candidate project submittals,we _ ' • request that you document how your agency consulted a range of stakeholders and interest groups, including dduls i to e and tumor it es,and thensummarize the:comments cd Also show how y our agency comments uence decisions; or, conversely, why your boardmembers opted`for a different outcome. . . We recognize'that some of you'.have done extensive publicioutreach and;involvement in the context . of developing your countywide•plan. If,that it the case,please provide us with documentation t • showing how your effort'mei the above referenced criteria..Please keep in mind that MTC•staff welcomes your,ideas and can assist you in your public;involvement activities. Please call.Ellen Griffin(5 10/464-7854)'ot Marjorie•Blackwell'(510/4.•' ::•).with■suggestions or for.assistance. 7e Heminger • 66 • . • cc:,MTC:Commissioners • . MTC:Advisory Council. , - . . MTC Environmental Justice Advisory Group 1:\SECTION\LPA\Ellen\CMAExpeaatipns;doc'. • • / / . • p • ■ M 0 P 0 LIT A N • Joseph P.Bcnrt MCMICentet • aft 101 Eighth Scre-4t T TRANSPORTATION Oakland,CA 94607.1700 COMMISSION • Tel510.464-9700 • TDD/TTY:510.461.7769 • • Fat 510 464.7840 e-mail:infogErter_dst.ca.us • NEWS RELEASE For-Irnmediate:ReleaSe Contact •Jim Beall;4083299.3924 Sharon.Brown, 510.8695098 Steve Herninger,/510A64.7810 MTC Leaders Announce Plans for New Regional Agreement on gal and Express Bus Expansion OAKLAND, Calif;._February 7, 2001 . . . Outgoing Chair James T. Beall Jr. of ;. Santa Clara County and,thcoming Chair Sharon J.Brown of Contra Costa County announced today that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will seek to develop;a new regional transit expansion agreement for inclusion as part of . . the Update of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan scheduled for adoption in November 2001.,The new transit expansion agreementwill_inclUde both high priority rail and express busimproyernents to serve;the region's Most congested • travel corridors. The new agreement would be a successor to MTC Resolution No 1876 *adopted:in 1988, a Multiyear_rail expansion program thathas'delivered new BART service to Dublin and Bay,Point in the East Bay, the Tasman lightrail extension in Silicon Valley, and the BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport, expected to open,in 2002. The innovative Resolution 1876 agreement has leveraged almost $2 billion in state, regional, and local funds'to obtain commitments for $930 million in fiercely dompetitiVe federal New Starts funds for Bay Area rail projects. ' - more - The BART-5F0 project iS.sl-ated to,receive annual appropriations of NeW Starts furiding through 2006 to fulfill the federal commitment to the project "INe'veYdelivered on MTC's 1988 promise bf, new transit service icit7Bay Area conmuters Itcs time to faSnion#a regional consensus for the next phase of rail and express bus expansion in our congestion-plagued region," said outgoing WC Chair Jim Beall, who also is the current cliairpersdri of the Santa Clara County 13oar4 of - . . . . . SilperVisors.: . ' ' • - •-• "The'ReS011ition 1875 agreement has served the region well because it relied on local Voters' financial S',..pport for the;projectsi.aS Well as a'fundamental'sense of . regititiat'fairness. ,MTCs,new transit expansion agreement will beiCrafted'with,these, same principles in mind,"tadded,Sharon Brown, incoining-MIC chair andia,',Sah . Pablo city councilpersori. MTC's recently completed Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for .the'j21 ! Century- Is'well as major new state and local Iiinding,COriirnitirientslasr year in the Governor's Traffic;Congeshcin Relief Program, Alameda Connty:tvieashie'4. and Santa Clara County Measure A— has identified nurrierons,proposedTrail and bus ' 'projects throughout the region:The Blueprint for the:.21. 1'Centuty highlighted the • BART extension in the:Eremoth-San Jose corridor- and the Muni'Metro Central Subivarproject in.San Francisco as leading candidates for federal New Starts funds in the fuinre in addition; ongning'sEudia int the Interstate 580,and State Route 4 Corridors are expected to develop more pinjea4deas-and information by the end of the year Thus, MTC can rely on ajarEeiatirf growing body of project proposals and. • analysis in faShibning sdan4it expansion agreement. • ' . . . , • . . -. . DRAFT' • i• " . . . . ., , . Regional Transit Expansion Policy _ . . • . . . . . - This policy,articulatei Criteria adopted bythe-Metrorlitan'Transportatidn Commission (MTC) for the development olaninteirelatedtprOgratif of Mil extension and express bus lirnjebts.that will improve mobility in the Bay Area's mast congested travel torn' dors. These expansion criferia,areprimarily concetned,Witlittiroyidiritadditiona1transit options' • for commute travel. A separate, equally important MTC planning exercise is defining a • safety net or"lifeline" network of service for transit7dependent,,riders, These two elements embody the core regional emphasis areas-foptransit identifiedby the Commission. . . . ' • - . • '' . , . . The criteria outlined in LA vKillIbe.usetLto:evalnate rail extension projects for inclusion in the fandcessoirprograni ttiMTC Resolution No 1876,which'Was-apprdyed in 1988. The:criteriain Attachment B will,be useitto,evaliiatenew express bus projects that will operateJaiithe region's high occupancy vehielejane'systeni... The'express'bus criteria expand upon thoSe'cOntainecrin,Alt C 1?esdlu4onWo, 3307 which was approved in September 2000 for the4pecifiqprogrqpitning,:of140;milligThin express bus capital funds . mad available by,ithe47rajfiC Congestion Relief Rrogram (AB 2928-statutes of 2000). III .. . . . . .. „ . In addition to the fact express buses will:be:mcluded.in•addition to rail projects, this _ . policy is distinct from Resolution No 1876 in its financia1atiricture. Reflecting federal • and state planning requitements;JhepOlicy will contain two fliers of funding agreements: -.-... f •, . .. „ _ . • _ . . . -: . _ .. . 7.. • A fully funded element that will be incorporated into the financially constrained . . Regional Transportation Plan(RTP), assurning,exlitingreyenues over a 25 year period.,,and . * -.. • An advocacy element thaVoutlines project prioritiesforcoptinued•investment as new flindstecome available. • Assignmentof available•reveinieS•for•expansiontransit purposes—bus or rail—must be - balanced by other investment needs;.inCluding baseline:requirements to maintain and • sustain the -ekistint.systern, and"lifeline",servicesfOr transit dependent populations. _ Rail Eiten - gions The•newjtail.extensicir pro gram will bei developed in tandem with the 2001 update of the RIP.,.and those rail projects that are fully funded Will,be,included baits financially conStraifiect elethent. The Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for the 21.` Century, and its companion Phased Implementation Plan adopted by the.Commission in March 2000, will guide which projeetS4re to be considered for evaluation by the attached policy criteria. A map highltghttng439 ential rail candidates identified by:the Blueprint is ill, AttachMerit A- Figure I. However,,this is not an all-inclusive inventory, and variations on these projeetsvarmew ones may be considered under these criteria. . , . . . • .• . . ''• DRAFT • As waSitiptedecessor,,the new rail extension program is expected to be,a-niik of federal; state; regional, and local funding ciiininititietita. ttf.tkus,the:regionfs,Washifigton D.C. . , advocacy, only a:few projects willi,be:selected to pursue full funding:grarit.agreements and appropriations under the federal Section 5309 New Starts discretionary program. Federal S ection<5307/5309;fOrmalrfunds will'not be naeiffellieltilfmanettlie rail or bus expansion programs, andwilfr.continue tcPbexeserved for meetingihe'region's urgent transit capital replacement and rehabilitatiorrneeda. • - • . , . . • Express Bus • The,CommissionpreyiouEljr.approveit12escilutibnWa,3497 for express bii.SEipatision for the first increment of$40)MillioniimState Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TGRP) cdpitalAnds,,whiChtwilt be:coiiiiititted'toprOjects:in*ay 2001., These Criteria incorporateiihe;essential eleMentslof kesolulion No 3307, modinting ik e-iiilOrecognize thebroader planniiig;horizalz Witliin-WhickthiSpoliCy will be iinpleitiefited. • - , The express bus program is expected torinclude.both'stand,aldne"-Seginetav},aswell as transition corridors serveasfinteriiri:improvements Madiiarieeitif rail .development. -kmdp of initial corridorsidentifiectinwie Blueprint is included, as AtIichTnentB-fijUre HoWever these are not all inèlusive arid other candidates _ • may,bepropoiedtarlecinsideration under the Regional TranlitExpansionFP011ey,. Federal Seetion 5309 Bus discretionarrfundi and other state, regional; and local sources will augment the initial $40milliorristate.TCRPIiithStitient. Fullyfunded,expreSs . . projects also will be inoluded.Mthefinariciallytenatrained,element of 2001€RTP Update. Likelthe.rail element, underfunded or unfunded express bus,projects:.'beconzea pliftfdrin:to eldvocatefor additional Supporting rrevenues. . _ •. • • • • • • • • • . - - • . .. • DRAFT • Attachment A: Rail Extension Criteria The following regional criteria wilhhelp.guide selection-of,projects for inclusion in the nextMTCrail extension•program. A potential:rail project does not need to meet all criteria to be considered for inclusion in the rail extension program, However, limited funding—either available now or anticipated as;new revenues—will,require priority setting among the many candidates,under consideration. Consequently, a project that satisfies multiple criteria to a significant degree will receive higher`priority than one that meets fewer criteria to a lesser extent. • Any projects pursuing federal Section 5309 New.Starts funds also will be subject to specific-Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements outlined in:49 CH(Part 611 :Major Capital Investment Projects, which were,substantially.revised andteissued in December2000. While several elements of these federal regulations are referenced in the regional criteria outlined below, the federal requirements also would be individually applied:against New Start candidate projects. 1. Honor Resolution No.,1876-TierI projects Of the six rail extension projects identified'in Resolution No 1876 Tier i, three have ,• been completed: BART to Dublin (1-580 corridor), 'BART to Bay Point (Route.4 corridor), Tasman West (Santa Clara Valley subarea). A fourth'currently under construction—the BART to SF0 extension-is the first priority for federal'New Starts funding in the . current agreement; and the terms of its full funding grant agreement with the federal government will require continued federal appropriations for the project through at least FY:2006 BART to Warm Springs-,and the Caltrain•downtown extension remain incomplete from the current agreement;;rail investment,in those corridors should receive priority consideration in;the next agreement, to the degree that.other relevant criteria are also met. • While Resolution.No.•1876 contained an extensive list of"Tier2"projects,for purposes of developing this.RegionatTransit Expansion Policy, these would..be considered on the same basis:as.other candidates brought forward to compete under these criteria. Several of these Tier 2 projects are the subject of pending corridor studies. 2. TEA 21' Authorization/Other federal actions. As a part of the overall,priority setting envision by the Regional Transit Expansion Policy,,a.specific objective is to identify leadcandidates for federal:New Starts funding once the BART to SFO full funding grant agreement is complete. Any Bay Area rail projects-seeking federal New Starts.funds mustbe specifically authorized in law. Passed by Congress:in 1998,TEA 21 authorized the following six projects;beyond those included m the,Resolution No. 1876 agreement (using the project descriptions found in the statute): DRAFT Final Design•and&Construction ' • .' San Francisco --Bayshore,Corridor• Stockton-Altambnt Commuter Rail • Alternatives Analysis/Preliminary Engineering - Fremont,--South Bay Corridor • - • Oakland.Airport• BART Connector San Francisco-Caltrain Extension to Hollister - California-North BayCothmutef Rail As well, the•S.F:Muni Bay Shore Corridor project has initiated the federal'New'Starts Report:process,;which evaluates the project against"establtshed,FTANew Starts criteria gn g applied any°Bay area 'projects that advance bey beyond the,New Starts•uthorization listings above. • 3. Traffic Congestion Relief Program/other state,funding • The percentage of capital cost covered by secured funding will be a major factor in • determining the viability of project'candidates, and is essential in determining'those which can move;into the 'funded"portion:of the Regional Transit.Expansion Policy; and• be included in the RTP. State funds will likely be a key component of any:f illy fitnded capital program: • • • The Resolution-No:1876 program received its first down payment of discretionary;funds from the California Transportation Commission, whioh eventually grew to a$740,million • • state commitment•to the•$4.1'billion total;program. In the era of SB•45 county:share- based,programniing of STIP funds, the best chance for discretionary state,fundingr`for • many years to come probably was the Traffic Congestion Relief Program;advanced by Governor:Davis and•adopted by the Legislature inJuly 2000. There are four proposed Bay Area rail extension projects'that received'significant funding•in'the program: BART to San Jose ($760 million), Muni Metro Third Stree4Light Rail- Central.Subway,($140 million),.CaltrainExpress ($127 million),and,Northwest Pacific Commuter;Rail`•($37., million) The last project also'has•$28'million'in Proposition 116;funds dedicated to the Maria-Sonoma corridor. 4; DedicaiedtocaiFunding • About 25% of the Resolution No. 1876 program was funded.by$1.1 billion in local sales tar revenue generated in Alameda, Contra Costa,•San Mateo,yand Santa:Clara counties.. The need for dedicated'local funding—through.transportation sales taxes orsomeiother • mechanism=is expected to be even,more critical under funding agreements forged under this Regional Transit•Expansion Policy. Increased competition for New Starts funding suggests that federal contributions for large project funding,agreements would likely"not exceed 50%, making.significant local,contributions essential..Local dedicated • funding gives the region a competitive advantage in Sacramento:and Washington,by allowing us'to over match discretionary capital funds. This criterion therefore will required at least.a 50% state/local combined match for any federal dollars sought on a • m - I • • DRAFT single project. At'this)pointhonly.Alameda and Santa,Clara,counties' recently,renewed salestax?measures have significant fundsdedicatedto,the"`next generation" of rail extensioncarididate'projects. • 5 0, ations,.and'Maintenance Capacity A.sa condition,of prioritizing and_committing capital funds it is essentialathat'any rail. extension project clearly demonstrate that it can be operated. perated and maintained`in the long term. Project,sponsorsmu$be:able to outline a:reasonable financial for the • following conditions: • the project lids a secure`seurce'offunds to operate,at planned levels'of service. • • When the.rail extension is•anaddition to an existing,system, overallsystemibudget . • projections must be able to+demonstrate<the ability to.sustain and.preserve the enhanced network.in thershort and:long-term, including increased operating, maintenance and rehabilitation costs. • For rail projects operated bygsingle entity that;also,provides,bus,service, the construction and operation of the rail project must;not result in;the diversion of . • resources away forMcore bus services. Where bus'service-realignment or restructuring is contemplated to better address system connectivity with the new rail extension, the project:sponsor must ensure that core bus services;particularlyto Title VI and transit dependent populations; are maintained as needed to address the'needs Of those populations. • It is expected that the'local dedicatedd fundingdifcussed above=will fundamentally contribute to'meeting this;criterion, as itis virtually the onlysource available to fund the; • operating subsidy for,the rail,extensionsaonce tley are built. Given that significant state and federal subsidies for operations are improbable,.demonstration,of local.support for operations will become a keyreguirement for any raitextensiori included in:the fundable element of the RTP. 6: Supportive Land Use:Pohcies one of the.key findings:of MTC;s.:,Blueprint evaluation of numerous;proposed transit • • investments is that rail,extensions capturemore ridership in.the denselysettled`urban core of the•region. Last year; the BARThhBoard,ofDirectors adopted a new'system,expansion policy that;emphasized the need to'"maximize ridership by supporting;smart, efficient, and desirable growth patterns', Similarly,.FTA'scriteria for evaluating projects:for New Starts funding recently,`has,focused'greater attention.on transit-supportive land:use •policies. Considerations,of"cost-effectiveness" (seebelow)will entail assumptions of ridership tied to existing or future employment and;residential development within rail extension corridors. Consequently, any evaluations.of cost-effectiveness thatrely on increased ridership.arising from future land use patterns that differ from ABAG forecasts would•requirepolicycommitments on the part of the relevant local jurisdictions that such land use changes Wilt-Occur A related consideratiomfor land use policies would-be the • r. DRAFT economic benefits:of new,development resulting from improved,'access provided'by the rail.investment.. 7. Cost-Effectiveness', • The Blueprint;for;the 21$`:Century;provides awealth of valuable. cost • effectiveness informationron potential rail transit projects thatwillrfielp guidethe, development of the next regional rail agreement Themeasure of cost effectiveness" used(in°the Blueprint and,assumed in this criterton'is"`cost per,hew rider"„t a the relationship of aproject's capital and operating cast'to'the�number of new transit riders . generated in"202.0. Both annualized capital`and operating costs'are•included infthe calculation. MTC will subsequent;information related to the"cost per;'new rider”measure based upon'more_detailed evaluationbyproject•sponsors.perfonnedi . subse'gnent to`the•Blueprint evaluation: FTA'places a_heavy emphasis on the cost-effectiveness.of projects being+,considered for federal'New Starts funds. The recently appioved`FTA's"Major.Capital_•Investinent • Projects; Final`_Rule"feipirtal a different Meastird of"transportationsysten user benefits". This measure would:be,applied,as,a separate telt to any'Regional',Transit _ txpansioniPolicy candidate targeted. for4ederal'New)Starts'fundings: 8. System Connectivity • III The effectiveness of a rail extension project isrenhanced by the.degree`to which_it. provides added value to the'existing transportation•network. Consequently„improved . system`connectivity by oftdiect•connections to other parts of the rail transitrietwork (e.g. the CaltrainBART connection in Millbrae.provided by the BART to SFO'extension)• .will'be considered "Gap,closures will be especially important,as.will major extensions into areas of the region with-no significant corridor.level transit commute 'opt ons. - . • .9. Systens Access • Related but distinct from system connectivity is the:quality'of convenient access to the rail • extension for riders frotn other,modes. This would,include pedestrian access, auto access (i.er.parktng)';and other transit (e,'g bus to.rail transfers at keycstationsYnecessary to • . complete`the passenger's trip.,.Prolect candidates will be evaluated on theektent to which :proposed alignment's and station;designs;provide for such'connecttonst . • • T � _( I' ;; , Bay- 4rea,Transportat�on Blueprint:for the 21st Century vAldldm Potential Rail Ex pansi in Projects • SAC R 'A M E • • • e SOLANO • S A N • J O A Q U -• • • CONTRA COSTA 0 10 401 1 mom iR ass Comnufer Rdl pnpmd • '-r� A L A M E D A BARTdmndcimmnm 0 =mast BART prtgoob `•.afj V - --.. lmn wa.mwdam.mkad • - ., uda RAI Paimad. }mmi9 Rtlb antopcomnivd SAN na.-. �4 } Rail Pro)ettn (., E O 11 �1 Samomilann Cosmos WB, I i CAMP Corridor mm<q Rad Issued s d..k e .. - 'S A N T A and Adai ISedan ' C L A P. A O BART.MSS o BMT.IHnnar.&salon - -.:- © BARTEDag6rd MannConiwtior Q+ BMT:Demon m San jos • BMT:N.w Station-Wuc Dub%n Q BRAT Derr Smtpn.I6.fifnNm Sl Q Mud TAW Si Cador(ST Camel Subway • Cabala Electritoton and Inaemo0 Sankn DC to Gilroy) Q' Stumm Commaa'Egne(ACE).Increased Smut Q Ono Can VTA IRT•Downtown/Es Vallm. ®• Bate Can VIA_Sw)oae Akimm Coons.. ® Dumbarton addp Wd Strip QCalvdn-oovnwwn San cnnano Suwon • .. = • • •• , . ..• , V. . . • • - • • - • • DRAFT Attachment B ' Regional Express BusPrograinCriteria, These i&iterra will determine an overall regional network and specific projects for the Regional Express Bitileleirielitiif the Regional.ThansitExprinsiOn Policy. They include the core elements of Resoliitibii.No. 3307, the.Coritiniisiori!s'Aegional.Express Bus Guidelines specific to theprograni Ming of paiiiillion:in.state capital Traffic Congestion • ReBef Prograinfisnils, Thy have been modified to refiecttii broader application under the Regional Transit Expansion,Policy - Express bus,services must demonstrate that they,patreffectivelyaddresa congestion relief by providing a.clearlytattractive alternativel(i,e:;,linproved,travel,,time,'improVed customer convenience, etc:),to:Single Occupancy Vehicle,"(SOV)travel along one of the following corridors identified within the Blueprint: • 1-680 (Central Contra Costa/Tri-Valley/SiliconValley) • 1-80 (SolantICO,I6 East Bay/ Sanfrancisco): , • SR 92 (San Mateo/Hayward Bridge) • US 101 (Spriorna/Marin,th SF). . • _ " • • 1-88 (Hayward/San Leandro'ito.SiliConNalley)." ' " . • •• .• • SR 84 (Dumbarton Bridge Express) • Santa Clara Valley AitawideRapid Bus • • State.Route:44(East:Ceriti&Costa to Bay Point BAT) • Peninsula(South/Central San Mateo to:Celina-BART/Silicon Valley) • 1-580"(San,J,oacjuinfCcituity to Dublin/Pleasanton BART) • • TriNalleyte SthoonValley • West Centia'Costath.Oakland/13erkeley/SF • Other corridorstWillpe:'considerettifihe process • Services can either be entirely new service, or significantly enhance and improve current services in thtisrto:attractneykriders. Expressw;bUses-edrz serve origins and • destinations,directly or provide exprds,connectionsto rail. These projects may represent "stand alone" corridorimprovements, or the initial 4thrt to mid-term phase of corridor enhancements preceding radinvestments. Pro rdam Goals The goals of the Regional Express Bus program are to • Provide an attractive alternative to driving'aloneby-supporting one or more of the • following features - reducedlrayel,time; Ilk - increased convenience by providing amenities for reading,.relaxation, office :werk,:etc:; - competitive pricing to driving alone; • • • ) 0 • DRAFT - gl to origins and destinations,,inciuding•connections •! director convenient access to the re on's:rail•network- • Target;program to_provide services in corridors that have;been'identified,inthe • Provide new or significantly pdroved,express services rather thamsupplariting: existing;services. • Take of existing and plannedinfrastructuresuck as the s•liOV network,,park-and-ride;facilities,rail`network;and intermodal transfer facilities:, • Generate;new transit riders: . Provide,}a seamless'regionaridentity•for'the customer through'useof coordinated ;marketing:. , • `-Pr"ovide the customer With:easy access'to information, schedules, and fare • payment: • Provide transitional,express bus services more;quickly-imcorndors where rail serviceis'planned but not deliverableifor,manyyears; - • Regional`Express Bus ProiectXCriteria The Regional Express Bus element of the,Regional Transit Expansion Policy will identify an overall express bus network•identifyingthe markets (originsldestinations) that will;'be • served: Specific.projects for landiriginutstimeetthefollowing,criterie • . Demonstration,thatithe.'service will;result in faster and/or more.convenient • servtceito the customer than by traveling in'a°single-occupancy vehicle e Provision ofa jerianeidi plan documenting capital andioperating;needs .including identification of opecsting'subsidies;.includingifares, and innovative approaches to`provide'operating subsidies, such as partnerships estab'liiihed9with the private sector f. Demonstration of the sponso'r's ability to sustain,long-term funding of the service . Demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of theproposed service,by,indicating the;cost per new•rider„ cost-competitiveness for the passenger; etc. - • Demonstration that'the'service•is able to relieve congestion by providingpeak • . hour commutes'service; . . Implementation that supports'regional coordinatiomas adopted'iiirthe Regional _ Transit Coordination Plan ('MTC Resolution 1!70,, ). • • • •. '1 t: . - • - . , . - _.. .. . . . -. ., ,.. Bay.Area-Tririsporiltiori.Bluearini for the 21st Centuky, , - ,.4" 1 1 . Bay /. . • . ■• • . . . . * (Potential Express Bus Projects' NAPA . I / er • . . • ' 1111111' ' . S '0 NOMA - . . - . . . • -- . SOLANO Mb • - - . . . -- •7" . . . . . 0 . ., —.... . . . . . • M A R L N ',...,,„ op,. ..-.... 1 • . . , / . /„. =1 ExIsting/Funded HOV lanes Y. 7,..r. (giggle bar indicates HOV lane . .L., , • ''., 's.. .' L // - 1 rs-r,et, ---... ,..._,...._ /......- a-s----- a in one direction only) - .:-''' '-.... N.( ...t. HOV lanes proposed in Blueprint Op- ! CO -Ij . '\''' - . r.'1311biti. ,--- `: .,-, Highway Improvements(Part 1) a. •, 1.. . O New HOV connector . . . -- ,_., - •-:-..., ...- „ ' .-..... .• , \ .,..-. • • -'- - - . sr..New Mixed flow lane ' ( ‘--••••d ei c.„,.... ,. - - ENV.. . . . EV- . 0 1-680 Sunol Grade nOrthboTicd4lOV lane, 'dt ''', ' 1., . • •. 2,. ,,,.. , ■ ' 4'. ' • ''. ramp metering and auxiliary lane` - 4-• . , , ..., - ; __ CONTRA • I-6110 HOV gap closure . , • 3 ,. , .... 1-580 riov lanes(Tassajara to L C O S T A Vasco Rd.) D 1-80 HOV lane extension . .. - . . . E Route 4 East from Railroad Ave.to SR 160 ! r sc. '-•'■ . ' 02111b. with HOV lanes to LoveridgeRd. ,. .: . g p„. 0 Convert southbound US 101 HOV lane to • 1 reversible HOV,Iane with movable barrier including bike lane gap closure " Route EISAJS 101 direct HOV connectors E US 101 HOV from Petaluma to Novato . .. . , i • — _ L — WI „ 4;10— ..- WI 11111- : •: .. ...- Express Bus Projects .„ ,-- - - . . ", . (9 Sonoma Co.to SFAarkspur Ferry E.Mann Co. ' ,... 7 ALAMEDA i • -• .,., . ... .-- to SF . . 0 Solana Co.to East Bay/San Francisco .... San Mateo-Hai-yard Bridge. , rAr-i • ' -' ‘- -N-.1-.-.-:-.:. 0 Dumbarton Bridge IllEha , 117.111 . 0 WestContra-Costa to Oakland/ . . . • !al Pi-. i •,-••• Berkeley&SF . 0 East Contra Costa to Bay Point BART • 0 Central Contra Costa to GI:Valley . ... 3 hi-Valley to Silicon Valley - , =I' • ,0 San Joaquin County to Oublin/Pleasantort ' BART . II 0 Hayward-San Leandro to Silicon Valley 41) Santa Clara Valley Areawide Rapid Bus e.South/Central San Mateo to Colma i. BAR7/5111con Valley ::-. ,:,.. , 'I . , 7 ) 07 • , • • • • • . 4, • . . • . • . • ' .• . , , . - " Bay, Area Transportation &-Lantr 'llse Coalition 0 working together/or a, sustainable and socially just bay area . . . , Marth 13, 2001 . • . . • • . Board of Directors do Jeanette Wood,Executive Assistant ; Sonoma County Transportation Authority 520 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 240 - . . - . . Santa Rosa, CA 95401- • . • Dear Sonoma County Transportation Authority Board of Directors, We are writing to share with you our goals and priorities for the 2001 Regional Transportation/Plan (RTP), and to open a-dialog with-you regarding projects for Sonoma County. The Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition (BATLUC) is a collaboration of over 60 environmental, social justice,landcomniunity organizations. We; were extremely active on,the 1998 RTP, promoting the 100% fUnding for transit maintenance policy-that WaS later'adopted by MTC. III Since that time we have grown significantly'and have developed a regional vision for an effective transportation system—described in the 2001 BATLITCreport, World Class Transit for the Bay Area (available uporurequest and on line). Based on projects in the report and in consultation with Coalition members, we have drafted the enclosed Platform for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Over the next month we will be adding county-specific prdject-recommendations;both for track 1 and blueprint components of the RTP. . . • . . • We would appreciateiany comments, questions or,suggestions you may have regarding the projects and programs in our regional Platform We would also be interested in speaking with you about the upcoming RI?, and local projects. We look forward to working with you iruthe Corning month's. Feel free.to contact us if you have any questions, or wish to discuss these issues further., Sincerely; ipt. 6-X(A-----.--- Rebecca-Kaplan Stuart,Cohen RTP Coordinator Chair . . . 0 Attachment: 2001.-RTP Platform . . 109 regional office: 414 1,3'''street, 5 floor, oakl a nd,CA 94612-2603i tel 510/40.31 50 fax 510 740 3131 south bay: 1922 the alameda 4213,san Jose CA 95126-143.0 tel 408,984_22135, fax;4.08.9,83.1p01 0 2! . I L -bay area transportation and, land use • COALITION Platform--.2601 Regional Transportation:Plan • Transportation That Work For Everyone! The Metropolitan TransportatiOn Commission (MTC),vvhich coordinates transportation issues for . the nine-county Bay Area,is in theprocess,of develOpingtheir Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This 2001 RTP is the"blueprint"that helps define hoW$125-billion,Of funding will be spent over the ' next-25 years. If we target these investments well,we can produce a transportation system that Works for everyone—one that is-efficientiaffordable andeasy tcruse.- Coalition's Sustainable Transportation Campaign:, . The Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition (BATLUC) is-a;partnership of over 60 environmental, social justice, labor and community groups working together for a more sustainable and socially just region. BATLUCadVoCates;for transportation investments that promote smart growth,vibrantneighborhoodcenters, a thriving local economy,and access for people of all ages, backgrounds,abilities and income leVelS. • . . In January 2000,after 13 months of research andfanalysikBATLOCreleased a 120 page report -. entitled World Class Transit for the,Bay Area. World Class Transit offered a bold new approach to fixing our transportatiorr,system by focusing on ma king,better use of our existing resources-- including 18,000 miles of roads and 600 miles of rail tracks— instead of expensive and environmentally destructive expansion projects Withicost-effectivelrivestments,combined with smarter development,the Bay Area could have a transportation system that is fast,convenient,and affordable within-just a few years. Let's not miss this opportunity The call for change has never been greater. Voters are supporting transitin:record numbers. (MTCis-helping'to-leadthe-9,Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy" process,which will workwithlocal'officials to envision a compact sustainable future for the Bay Area Recent governmental rulings and,court cases have increased attention on the Bay Areas failure to attain air-quality standards. MTC has also been urged tdaiVe greater attention to the,needs-ollow-incorneandundemerved comMunities. The specific project and program recommendations orytberiext page would promote a transportation system that addresses all of these issuES:and WOCildirriprove-Oilality of life for all Bay Area residents. • . Please.join;us helpmg:to make thesegoalsbecome&reality! To sign the blatform or get moreinformation: Ili web:www:transcoalition.org emaikiRTP@transcoalition.org tel: 510-740-3150 fax: 51.040,3131 414 Thirteenth Street, Fifth Root, Oakland, CA 94612 • • 1.,:1; ,aa!„' n uJN r 'ts ^k ¢BOA`•-� iii ° y a y 7'h{ Transportation That Wggqorks.,for Everyone _ . -- ,=',naR gional;Transportation Plan Reeommendations (BATLUC ; 2001) fi ,.p.,}:;, . ..n' . A t 1 �J ✓3 �. r t '~` , K. "�' :e,.4 l J.: I ... �, a .- .... I '1.Transportation Justice Package ' - MTC's regional Lifeline Transit Network'should meet theneeds.of transit-dependant residents by expanding existing service to,24 hours,7 days per and ensuring affordability by providingfundingfor targeted discounts,and eliminating transfer"costs.$125 million per.year. 2."Smart Growth"Community-Investment Fund Support projects that e:improv livability.and affordable housing in Bay Area-communities. This includes MTC's successful Transportationfor<Livable Communities and Housing;Incentives Program,focusing on • housing construction near major,transit stations and routes. $50 mil ion pet year. 3. Caltrain Electrification and Downtown San Francisco Extension The downtown extension closes a'major gap in the regions transit system,by bringing'Peninsula residents . directly downtown and allowingieasytransferswith other transitsystems. 'Electrification would allow for faster,cleaner and more frequent train service and has been identifiedby MTC as the development that would attract more riders than any other rail project. Electrification,$375:Million. Extension, $700 Million. 4.Express Bus Program and Bus,Rapid Transit - - MTC identified an expanded Express Bus.Program as the most cost-effective,and quickest,way to attract ; new transit riders and,reduce congestion. Our proposal includes;distance commuter.service,creating bus- priority arterials for faster service Within.urban areas,and increasing`hours'and frequency. $l billion capital, .- 0 $100 million per year operations, • . . 5. Regional Bicycle;& Pedestrian Safety and.Access Program -Biking is anenvironmentally sound form of transportation that-promotes public health and is accessible to those with low-incon es:;County bicycle plans should be fully funded within the RTP along with an increased emphasis'on,licycle access to transit stations. Those who.travel by foot and wheelchairr need safe access to transit,housing,schools,,public services,and commercial areas. Therefore;<we propose,that MTC aid transit districts and municipalities,by providing technical'support and education!in°pedestrian friendly design. 6. System Preservation and'Maintenance Maintaining the existing transportation infrastructure must be;given priority for'current funds. This includes 100%funding,,commitment,tot meet localitransit operators'maintenance shortfalls—'necessary to avoid service cuts or excessive fare increases, along with funding maintenance of existing roads. 7. Prioritize new'funding'for transit service enhancements Transit operating costs!,should"be the highest priority for future funds:Recommendations include extending hours of service,increasingfrequency,and providing,extensiveParatransit. t,fund wasteful.projects that promote sprawl and pollution. The Coalition n g y projects that induce more driving, promote sprawl, and 8. . o4no on does not su port fundin for environmentallydamaging. Projects should be excluded based onthese criteria,.suchias the Hayward Bypass,(savings$195+million),:and Caldecott;tunnel'fourth bore(savings$160 million). 9. A Fair Regional Transit Agreement By.August 2001,MTC will update their 1988 Regional-Transit Agreement,impacting many of the same . community,needs,that are being debated in the RTP. The Agreement is likely to focus on building BART to San Jose, but-this massively expensive project may l'ead to severe cutbacks in local bus service and stress an already burdened,BART system. The Coalition calls for: a commitment that there will be no cutbacks in,local --- servir_e,d arSanta C1ara-payfar its fair:share-oftlie existing-BA-RT-system;and-thatany°buy-in" program not—:— 'obligate the.region to other projects we cannot afford. i LS . • - - i I '.. • It I I LE) • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • STAFF REPORT • DATE: April 9,:200.1 TO: Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) FROM: Suzanne Wilford,:Executive Director Janet Spilman, Transportation Planner • SUBJECT: ITEM'X: PUBLIC HEARING —2001 Countywide Transportation Plan ISSUE: • Update on Countywide Transportation Plan Project list - . BACKGROUND: . The SCTA is in the process of developingi a comprehensive 25-year Countywide,Transportation Plan with the help of the county and nine cities. The purpose of the Plan is to update past • transportation planning efforts in order to prioritize transportation needs:throughout Sonoma County. • The importance•of maintaining an updated'planning document is two-fold. 1. Provide list of projects to be:included`in the Regional Transportation Plan°'(RTP). 2. Document a prioritized list of projects--necessary to program future funding to projects and for a possible future sales tax measure If the SCTA does not meet these two requirements all jurisdictions'in the county are at risk of losing critical transportation.dollars. The Process • The SCTA has committed to producing a comprehensive 25-year transportation project list. After months of discussion and with guidance from the Board, staff from each jurisdiction created a .j recommended list of projects based on the plan goals and subarea objectives. All modes (rail, roads, bicycle and pedestrian paths, bus transit).of transportation projects were included. The. accompanying project list includes capacity increasing projects as well as maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Staff in each jurisdiction was asked to submit transportation projects that would demonstrate a connection toythe Plan Goals,and Sub-area objectives. The Technical,Advisory Committee (TAC) then met for two days to discuss each project'and it's significance to each subarea. Where appropriate, projects were combined or adjusted. Once a complete list of proposed projects was compiled the TAC members voted on how projects should be prioritized within each sub-area. Each jurisdiction with a project in a.subarea•was given ten votes, of which no more them 2 could be used for a single project. Ties were awarded to projects with the same number of votes. The Proposed List The attached list is the resulting recommendation. It reflects not only the-TAC's understanding of the transportatiomneeds in the county, but their commitment-to°the collaborative sub-area approach. Projects were discussed in detail, and ranked according to their significance to the sub-area as a. I 11 • • whole. The,subarea approach marks-estep,toward;addressing the regional,nature of transportation probleins. Next Steps The SCTA has determined that the Countywide Transportation Plan should include a prioritized list of projects. To that end, the TAC developed a recommended priority list.¶Staff is requesting the SCTA and its member jurisdictions review the list and provide input and direction on how to proceed. With'public input; each Council andthe'Board of Supervisors will'finaliz e'theslist.of transportation projects within their jurisdiction—the SCTA members'will then bring their list back to the next SCTA Board meeting for discussion and final approval atthe May 14 SCT •meeting: REQUESTED ACTION: • Review the,attached project list, take public comment and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. • • • • • • • • • SIR . • _ __. : _, 8 0 0; o o -o ' ' o 0 m, v o o c o: 0 0 0 a o _ ca O 'O O O 0 O'. O. - N ®_ ® ,O. :O 0 O O o. -o ■ .... a+ N- N ' 0 O O 0 0 O • O ,�. ® .r .w w • c O N O' O 0 in co o 0 co O ® a)E e V M L Cr)M V E», 69 a r m _ '■ UI II a ii ` o ca ii ■ -c ■ • s e m s c o. - an- s - - U . ES i 0a o a ® R • d Q co s is o, U '■ o is' i 2 o. cc re a c a E ® co 03 c - ■ � ..0 .0 ■ a C>rn- ' om d x _° f c w � E m m o V" Cr ill CI n m - "c m' 'a '' co ® ca o �. o of .m. . x cn Z co - E n. a e a �. m a a. 3 o - El ° 0 CO I'S > . . c,. s X G. • r0 = O N Cla m•� a a� w .2 m o c L _ .0 0 R 0 0 0 0 . _ - C.:C � ' - ° o i s m a a� Q m® c E a" m i - - . 0 ro ill Ft a• v c III ®. ■.�, �: - �� co. �'. CO a) co [n! -. 0 o) ! Eo la V am .- O .r. N O 0 c r N Cq 0 O r. r C)C ill CC a 119 . . . - • . .- . . . . . a 0; 0 o 0 o .o - . o o .0 0 0 0 0 0 0, •0 . • N 0 0. 0.,, ,C) 0 0 P o• ,o 6 . a. a o a o cn o i o C..; • -0 im o cr .o., os op. • _. o. - - • 0) b- eg ..- 09: Cr) r EP> .Cr) N ll cneD i (73 ER . . 9.. 0 • . . i• 0 • • a • . a - • - 1.. , ' a . . - . • . a 8; . . - . . . -.. • • • . 1.1. . ' • n' c ill alco . - . . . . . • -■ I . . . . a C . - . . ■ - . , , • W . . . . . • • . • • ..- • . . . • 19 • , • . -. • . • el., 1:01. _ C.) . - ■ `.." r ..7. -th..,.. c 0 . w 0- . o 0. w- :-- . I?' - 0• 0 .., 3 I 15 co 0 11 .::1 l• a) a) • 0 1E,a0 .. - • - • ea 0 c -. a) oi > c 0 Y -6 76 = i-,-0 zo, 0,0 U a) 1‘-- -- o r. 1 •" '.- o 0 — 0, 0 0 . w• 0,,.. w• — 0., r r- ',.., -3 r r ,..., . M 0 a. 0. 0 -1., c . , ZC . , >, §: - — a i -0 . , :Er , . _ 0, , -i, a C >.. m 49 .0 C - `C cn 3 • • ..., .›.. '-' cu f-le'• m. -0 ,, a -0 ••-•. o. -0 13 II <3 •s 0 a -7 ' ' 2 o, ,0 0 , o 0, a). >• it w- r ii ° o co .5.. o 0 i_ 0 a) < N. 0 0 ' rc. E 0•0 -t 0 rt CC r 0, > , 6 - -'. - - r m• c3 ca, It o :0• • '-. q cr) 0 0 •-° • c v) E C • 0 — o — • — ' '' " . w a .- -0 EL a.) o > —, . 0) •. CO ca •.c • _, — ''''' It 0, m 0 0 3 W i l t S 0 < . }— . . -' o ,... • • - - .. o . ,._ o as cn co 6 •09 CD: MI al '0 V) •.." 0 1-• 1/) 0• 0 0 ri :fri. c L° , E CC -0? CL 8 CC". 'OC CC - . i "0 • :.0 :c a . l= c„, ,..0 o 'E 7:', •-• 2 73 2 '0 J.L3' 2 Li ca CU ' - 0 D C "1 •''''', a a) 40 cc' .1-, 0 ,0 0 0■ 0 CD a), 0 c c c c . • • le E'i- i E . 0 • o C . . •. • L. . a) • r N CO •71' mi cr,- ,i. In co N.. N- N- h- ,r, •,,r. - ...r. -•. kt• . o. 0 I 1111 . E, =m N O O 0 0 0 0 -.0' 0 O: 0 0 9 O ®. a �, ''00 00 r 0 ,0 0 0, 0 0 0 :O co co a O b lC) O •V 'O O co' I� Cn. O. O N - �' ® . D• O .7 L S CO co O 1` co O N CD O ■ m _ •V' N 'u�' i.co ' CC) u) tO. 0) 10 S 0 N CO a a - a' fi �' `va is CO Cr) v_ N CO » Ea e a al _ a� .. S S .. a. U) a • s' ■ Z ® . a _ Fs e_• a a a, S a U. Di 0, ■ a) 01 'a - N 'C a a c c cm a g. y, �' ,m m 'w v m E a ® .. C _ .ml 'N '� N .C. U:_ co CO ■ � > = y R U a.c E U7 CT) a. 0 R p _ U O) C jn c a m . �' N C . 0) a ' ■ ■ R N ' N C U as a mN p ■ p a N V 0 R 7 4 N I - y N - ■ m N C CI) 111 O U O O N a G R _ O to aj ■ • m. CC. C m 7 - Wei m C ii W> U ® ,a 9 S E ¢ L d - >- 3 v a ■ m S - J c� O' C to .10 co. a .N .3- I Du i TA L . R N'. .V :Ul = p. m p -gy m d a) m O d a. m _i �, R c o Cam. it ® m ® Ya >> -) •3 ,m a '3' mo R u N o' ° �' c, Y '> m - 0 7 0) R ■..C9 '- O > 17 C ® 0 U a m' O O 6'� 13 a" N Y O ■ U I; a. R c . c c U >. y R o cc - m c c a ° a E' 'o @ o o .m, . c o o m m o o ' a We a) y' m R O O CO c 01 ■U 6 vi a a' m C ri.� §• N r = R y. Y a O V C m - rR!_ = c ._c 37 -0 _ r m ',CC o m R a o E ° cc -±- 3 m o v m 0 o o m ® y E. -0 a) o a Cu, i c=- p a� a - > E 2 E• _ a a O 0; in 2 O 0. u) 2 < :m t p a g el 0 . ii• a- ° +a 7 a a- Ma. _ ■ R a co T3 ca co ca co ® at a■ 7 O' N o = o O O:. o ® cp 0 .200c ku ° 02 = 02c c a o .7. ,. O afl . ® N •,7 >.. :c 7 c C C 7 7 C 7 = 7 7 7 ■ .,,, b 2 I co O. co co R O O R O O; O O O E �' a 7 n " '0 0 CO 0 CO CO � 0 0. u) U U, 0 0 0 ! E — co ¢ c 0 E Q®' •C - r ■ t - O r N �N- •1 V •t 7 CO a0 co - 7 0 a 'ZY' O r r 'r r -p ct ® ■ Z , m; a a 2.1 � . . • , • • 0 1.0 0 111 o o in CO, ' 0 . 0 0 0 0 ,t 0 o co 0 CO CO CO 0 N • N : to N r-- o o CS) r 01 ..-• . - - - L.Cf cn ,o co OP 0 o odoo cid ,ii8 U) 1....... c-) ,-, CO 0 ;r. N C.) 0 0 0 0 0 '' CO r N N (0 r Ce) C‘E 'F 0000307 • CO S. S. S: EA S V/ 10 0 CO 0 r N 'r 't— U 49. Ur} ER li• Z '11 , 5 - n • I; • i- ... 13 0 .0 0 .---. 'C. TA T N 0 0) r - C . C — 2., i ° E CT) -....T V7 . "C 4 = i 11), 1/5 •CI . 0 - II C ••• • CD -in .0 0 9 3 . • ) • ' ' . = co c co qc „CO co co c • . — to • 0' . CO 03 7,. ° o = >-, i"cr, 0 0 co, E m 17)..3".13 - .. - .. . . ,_ —0 o • .-6. 0 0 .0 0 . o • 0)11.) --- . c co o ,... ca co C) co -co 0 - E ;I — 2 ,- 7 c • = • 0 I:, co c co •i 0 0. 2- - W -c - - E'•■.- o i 0' -,r a) I 2 U c• E -_z- , r ic 0 .0 l_ EL •o 0 •---. • 7 0) •>. -0 CO CC .0 • '0 cy 3 -0 E ,I• •c 'E rz.-. 2' i 0 = 3 . • E ... -8 5 c — TO 7 0 — > < '' 2 a a - .4- - ■- c •... w 0 o 'a' . C CO ° • ......... CCI E -0 0 0 ri CD. i r3 vC 7 "0 OC ° 00 a ct 9 1.5 ai o ' •g E 0- = 41) CL 0 ' • .2 0 co 13 . -o • rn ,t, c( ,„ 0 E ci._. -- , m > ca c E -,>. >. 0 2 -rn- 0 .2, .c s < 2 S 0 ,ch „, cal m, 2 c >, co •c •E' "c 0.1 — H x 0 ,Ti 03 CO 000 TOC1W a 03 CL v r E r< m -H., Z 0 co Ct . v >., >-- o — -0 a`.■ ...a 0 3 LLI ..... ---. 7 -,-i'D c./ I •CD > CO CO• Cr V .,„ 0 T3 -0 W cc I.P >i 41) cc 0 cc to a ° ea •- 0 i 0 .2 c a) _ , ■ — c q. — -- p> > > .0 — ■ • • 3 • •rs 0 _1 , -_=-0 -0 'C CO ra 0 1 0 if) C[ CO v, • = ..c. CL cK tr) -.-.. = u W 0 7 - `- 1_ t CO 0) c ..-C n„ L• I/ ,-7,, o , 'c o• 0 ..= C 0 t 7 .- al 0 %.7. 03 f 0 co. 3 -,...%,- ,.÷.," caHr.. 00u. io_ Etcocoo.. a. is u_ .--. ...., m la I • CL C • i O - O i 0 CO : 0 03 CO CO CO CO CO CO • C MI 03 •CO . 31. C■ Cil i) 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 V) co 0, 0 (-) • +-. - to .0 it CL CC Ct CC. CC (t 0 CC CC - :' -3, ■ i 1:3 . .3 >-: >, >, >, >, • " •-• -•-• C-5 i n c c 0 CO CO Mt al @ @ c c c, C ° 21 C C -• 03 ... •7 7 -12cc c 'E 'Ec zo .cI) 0 C c. 7 0 'II E• -1- 0 0 co ak 0 •0 CO CC 0 0 0 0 ■ , I.- 0 0 co co 0 0 3 U 0 U) CO CO U) 03 U) CO U. 0 Cil -, 0 CD CO 0 Or i E O _ - "c) Et o •-... CR z, - 0 cl ,,, .. • .4- .4.- .1- .1- .1- ,1- 1- ‘i- 1.0 up in 0 8 r r, r •cr- ..a., •c L.) r r r r r r r r N N N 0 ...IF 1 I i 27_ ." Uo o 0 0 0 o io: o, 0 c'i R) r 0 0 o - o o s a) . o 0 0 o o ' o o o o N O CO( ;04 o . ,O" CO . 0 N N l0 N 0 0 7�. N ,o' m - 0 ' CJ .10.: 10 0 O< C7 r N ■ d r to co H3 - co Efl LU N d� fA, C) 0. 69 v EA - T` en. r EA EA ACA V3': 6A QA C) r CA m `) . q, va EA to a Z • V - co B_r. °) C it N �. - C i d o ® a V Q. cc 3 ' - -o ac) ° 0 Y. �c . ® o E m �' o o o > �+ co ,o 3. CD o r3 ...W J C!. 0 c L- _. • x m y � 7) , ® o E E m "� m L° ` y co o u) Y > i d c E o c 3 - a "- i a) � i' o -0 u) o c v � x) 8 o r E c m a' m ° _ a K ° ° y a o U co� S2 .01 3' 41" � " '(a'".. � m O- . O, 3. 7 E @ ° 7 z ° U w _ m a N m O n a) :N a m O - E 0 0 'C N: - 7j � co Y.0) `O 0.°°. o o C ,m o E 3T . 0 p °--.E ° E. ' _ a ) c .> a) C 2 o, _. • .. O 0 5 > 'N a) CO o E C 0 -a E, 0) 2 = 11000 o E a7 a) o E m = m - °, c o m e o ? co a m v 3 0 r en > .' a c i,E E ,O o; aE • 4. E 0 c a Na 0 O N Nr 'y ' 0. J - U 0. 7 ..W �. >O " � '� Y .N w 0 en N O 0 'A N a) N'. ,.0 0- .3 0 c a' •3 c Pc n) ' O E 2. U c 'O). 0 L c. = N O .- E ,.L-. °8, :3 a) o ® co a a in 0 (Ca -C <a C. :O; a p - 3 > O N� N co "N T T oc cc C _ E O :a) N. a co CO 'E J. .E v' o 'a' m a L °m a) a). 0- �. 0) " > • 0 .. o a° C a) c a) C. U• 0) _ a rC - = o. `.. C e o,U < m a 'fn'. a 0: in ,m (0 O Cr)' - cc cn u) U) 'O� Ll co' - 4 : . m a - a CO - 0: p C 6. CO a) "N E CO O cc -0 L 1 r N o `o o E c o --a ; a 7 Z- C: 0) N N .- 7 N c O L 7 7 7 -L c > - 7^ •CO.. C Cl C - 2 .0 C 7 . .> 70 0 E a, 0 0 O 0' '07 O O, 0. 'O 0) `.CO "0 - E o 0 0 0 c u) 0 0 0: r sS S U a u) -,5 0 0 0 x .° N N 'N • Q Z . -- k 123 . . •-• • . . . . • . ._. • . . 0 . _ . . o 0 o b• o o o 0 o . - • o 0 0 ,o c), o . 0 c), o, • ii..., ..4. . • 0 0 0.:- ,P.: 0 ca NI' (°. 9. . . . o id' o, o 66 ua co in co - . o N 1.0 0 In r-; ..‘r'• 0- to • co CO N 10 CO CO 1.0 'CC 't , IV al • U) S S fnr- ai -,- ,-- - ei N S. 'ci.:> St ca'" fit •' • ri Z , • • ,- III _ . ' 1-. . . 11 . i . . . 1! 8 . • . -0 - • W :1.. En .. i a: c r.-. . • r. ao a)• 2 . •a'a E -. V ,„ a) . • - ea 8 0 c ;•.c -ea co .• i a . .) 0 o • 0_, > < a) > • :rs m• c ;= in cla • - --). ,aa, i ' < I. . . . la iE .c. • to n ,0 Tri . N. - c. > •,Es a.) ca a, • li.5 g E 1=_ -o - - ' • • la ° c ,..N ... . • ill t•z-i-a3 • • 0 a> - -..c 163 • . .. . iii;0,c.) r_a ix 6-:: c. a .t, co ,c • .:E • 0.1 o, ,0 . %- O.1 •-ert ;L.' CO •0 .1 ul 0 Ol T_I co E ..0 .-0..- --.. 70 c! ,o co 51' ra1 'C . . ...- .•' 0 .0 .i.-_- 0 ... - .:.- 51 0 *,8 or_ - - /-0 _ ..0 • •,:c co• 5 . . 0 0 '• a --,-_=• - .... ry .676 m CO t _ _ .••••• 's- -E ..... co „ c.r, pa as c . t a co . - . • >, , c 2 c co• 0 • i co.-E o o = . . -0 o• .....• -F3- 0 c. 3 E cc: tc . -Jo - ft ,(o) c' c E - e i- 0 • • i'-^ c S E E co , a, 72 c c I— •• > ''-' a.) — 0 t c,.- tay, ":2 o o• . .0 grz a..... C.' 2 E It.. ! ' 1 ' ca . . .1, • p -6-i r. a) gr •••• :p• n, . o Ta " o. ± ± E: . - , = 8 0 • • • x 4,, — 2 3 ,1)(9 —6 ts . .-0° Z1 •-as -g r20 .- ra) 7, .k ca ,.3 ., .. 0 -.4'0 •._-,,, E' • 0) 3 -o -. v t 10 2 > -o V cc e .g...0 • to/ cc ,...p. 1-0 E g < a) o, •• '.- .0 -k in 0- • -‘ Ce CC -E, .. 11, m u"J 0 13. •c0 5 =, -° . • o cc • •Ci • . • . - • . a . _. • . i . . • . i. to ....,. ,_ ig co: co co cal .0 •ca (17 0 U3 in cn C/I, .0. 0 .0 CD .,.._ " a .42"-.. - mg 0 8 o • • i 13 Z• . . ., • 0 in 0.i. En - • in ,c C c' -ca ca .11 -. v • 0' = o or c c c ,c C C C • . • • =. E a ,o • cn • . 11 0 _ •- a.) .c t co al co co co co co• co co' so • -0 N N N N N N N N N N. ri . • --' 2(4 • • . ' • • ® m, o. '0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 - C 0, '0 - 0 0 0 7 N 7. CO. � 0. - m ® o o' 0, o v of m:. v- r "o a - • 69 o '-o. 'CO • 0 69 7 0), -V' (0 00' _ 0 in 'o ea o m 0. CO ■ '0 • '® ® a+ N' .,0', r c-_ V-) a. s St a CO ® 'r ■ 0' s ®, I.0) 11 U0 C C - a _ •y. T 0)• ® '®: to tn! '�� .. y: L C - •y - ® on C O. `. 0 co ca. _ C ® ® cm •� V) @ C - CO ® N. a• D)1 U OI 0 i g CO C .0 — �.' .y .@ C - a ▪ Si CO V _ 'U @- uj U @ in' h ■ U . ® m a) v m 2 5 c a - o a 1. En 0- E C .y O O N a) O) C - o O co .E E C. 0 • .0 T 7 m •n m d G' a Z. 1711 I= 0 v s U ® c - N 'm u) 0 ,, O a) @ E O • � of p. CD !m n o ?� 0 ., 0 -a o U . o coo 0 00 FO, t i EI Ot ® T 5 u C a) a) C a) = Y• 0 @' C O_ - 57 --, . ® , m 0 �! • I ' E. t v i o 0', - - -X L.-a - m ir. M', ® . . V:, ` CC 0 CC U t tea) a)" O L a) C CO ■ . • lail 0 i ■ s c 0 --.w- ca .... m. `, 0 co C N' 0 aa; 0 0 0. 00 00 0 0_ 0 o O - E urn rn a a Y O 'r 7 7 (D (0 (D co co r N N N N :.' Q m r r r I, - / . • - 0 i• co . • C. C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 4- 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i a • 0 0 0. 0 000 000 , 00 0- - - N C 0 6 oc7c, c, ci - c) to co 0 0 0 . 0 '' 0 0 N: In 0 0 • 0 ,0 In O CR co a) co I.0 ct CO CD 0 m- a • 0 W5 .- CV (NI el ER bR -1 to ‘,_ ER ER pi to 69 ER a 0- i .7. Elm • • 0- 171 in • >, C - CD . ...-. 0 , ra TO cr ,c' E -- -ow c I o = 13, r.) 0 7 Illl CC - co 1 E - af, 0 - 12 . . .b C) 0 -§ ca 1,3 tn' i 0) VI 0 E -y, co - c g o 0 -0 0 V 'El 13 c 0 a) ...- " 0 0 -0 — - •- 0 0. 0 , u - a. a - • 4- . E o 2 7 c ;I ---' a ii a . 0 a 0 co— I z) ,,g, R co t 0_ '5 . ° . - - .0 a ° 2 o e 0 a) - c, i 0 - ... _ " CO 0 a) a) a ._.■ - s- 2 z '0 0 CL C6 S 1E' E o ccc 2 inu0- o E i E a ch -cs c o CD 03 C - 2" - a o -0 • CD al C 13 CD C, E > CD -C ? CO, C C C 0 03 =• 2 a) 9, E 0), > •4- 6 c • .. 10 C 0 0 0 0) -0, E.,) ca -I Ea E§ cc 0 E _ (2 SI ... 0 _C ",-, CO. r -0 , 0_ - - 12 0 . ca) 2 •a ''s •-•_, co • 3_0 ,L2 rp=i- 0. co it c '-' ti) - 0 3 - •"' E - 2.) 1r co - C' t ,,7 .,, la ,- , c ,-,0 P r • -0 • 'cn ) "'6. 'C n r c 0 - c ca ..= I 0 a - in .-= 0 To ?.. a ci U) C. .5.' -0.- .8 .,. — a co i 8 o6 c ir,', 2 0. 3 c ,D (Dow ,_ to u) C , to 61 m $2 I, --a Q .— (,) 0 0 ca 0 .•-•,_ .0 •-• -.=-.-. aa E tn El' = 0-a 0 Ts -2 ,--1 co a q) — c E c -. ._ .0 c c a c 0 • . to 2 Cl)' . .0 -r, ..c? c 0 o c.D co -, 2) o. i T.) Li '5; 46 • (13 o 3 -1--I 4.-- t .2 '51' a) to' TD C (13 I 42 13 OCU- 00 2 2 w ' 0 -a, ° °- -- o .-.1 s o ti• a -o -6 -. - 0 0 >- •to" a -- C ea > -E. >, a co ' Cla -'. Lffl CD 0 § < CI) 7 03 2 r--•N — U. 0 2 < .- - o > C) a 0 75 ,c. !! -o o t- g. - - - 3 ' o co ti -0 0 -a 2-, t,- z) DI • <- La ,.. ?, r -0 Tar g r 'to E g c !tu 1) c' -8 2 ?.. - a) = a , z. „a) 6 > - T3 ' s > f°) o m. s -', ;- a) o -,. 0 s o a) 0 a. • . a. . co_ a cow _ : a co, 0 0- 0- co 0 0. o to 0, 0 w ua Or 73 tn 0 a o o ! is 6 -5 C a c C c (U c C c C co 6 a C' a .f..'.5 .2 •:, m a m Dmarom0 = = pma .o .omcCalT. E 0 7 " 0 co 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 ,c N. are. CO al CO 3 --) 0 (/) U Or U (1) 0 0 U U Cl) CO Cl) 0 U) V) 3 II 'U (J) Ul >, . = 1 -0 -E la t 1). 113 0 r ,- ce) c0 V) V) t--- co 'co co co- co c0 co to co lo a 0 .! r r • CC EL i sY n lit - w e o , r. _. ■ N N N E d 64' ® ■ B 9 . U . ■ 0 e o m n . . a -o s 5 0 - m . C . _ a . Y C O a . ® m d . a C ■ U N' _ O J - .1 . -,o ■ W C O O) C i o Q C 11 . O o n E o • o e eta Q' 4---., - E .o D e 0 2 u N F : u Co" 2 O C G) O - U N C - N CO !v . O .O L' C U N N © d - >. N L -.13 : U C a) 3 o a ■ a T-° •c d - L .r, .3 ® — 07 r 7j i• - o en - . s U i Y CO a m o y' 0- C �` a -_ c m c m m o i- 410 1-R m o m m a (n U E. r w ■ . 0 _. - U . G) r N N i Q 1 l • • ir)_R II O E 11111 i ca - a m 0" 0 0 - ® Z E - al L, m v: o a ea 111 ,y iii 0 ®_ ®_' �y N' •:y ■ ai _. V a ® E.. c . .E B a ®' .a) O O O of a) 0 N - U) ® —na , U le N C • 'O C "O ® m N N i. L c L O _ U co a y, N m O _• U _ > a u i 0 ® .O ® m 'o_ m .. ! �_ ®- a — c E c m a c E - N in m 0_ III m U /� cn > cn > o ® j-. N 'd) - y. 'O N cu U1 X - O ilia- "yloa® U o ® ti)m ! s C c y O p ® - 'J 7. :y O 7 C. ;a. N nu ® - 0 0 0 U U ■ E 0 d ■ U 32 MO d Y Y o' a- N' 2 'o 1- N N U ill_- z®: 0 ■ Q S • 130 • • ._ is Ea o 01 O O 0. O': O O O O O ot ® = 0 _ O v3 a4 C W ® ,.D U 0 ■ co ii ® e.•m e d m m 0 ® a O) ■ y U c p- ® 0 ® = 'a - ■- a C -N` = Im • 7,1 ti C, N ® a a) " 0, • 0.,^y C « - ._ C a 8-al el a m' C. W U = C y B 0' :C a) O) N a) O A N U _c y .,- o ■ cn ii ii. U 7' 3 ° T To U a 04 ® y i a y C 'a) C U1 r IQ U a Ell -0 '.0 > - a 7 7' C a) 2 0 CD a a m O C V m U y C CO C p 1 N 2 i) 0.) a c J • ® o 'm a)' 'O o ° w '3 0 o E: o ° w .O 7 r ) O N' YO) y C C C m p_ q.� ® U \AV� O C m dI > aI • 4 C 0 d':'. N ii Lin ig '° , E :.E -C a) Q 0 N C. y > i a v '' m m ❑. W m E a a), m ❑ ° ■ �_ o -o m E 7 S u r a c a'.— ,- c 0 ■' m IC C C at a) - 0 �o i w r �' y g w K E �_ - w ° c isi C c C C C c c c C C � O N E— �® i7 y 7 7, 7- 7 7 7. 7 N 7'. '7 7 :C C > 7 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O' 'O O !N O ° - O E ® a ±+ U 0 U 0 U 0 U ', U 0 U to co U� 0 ® E ® E >, _ L. d ■ - = Y P N (1) V U) cD N- O -c7 c) cc) to D 0 Q ,v/ m C 0 1 3 I . . . . . . - . .. .. . . • (V r: 4_ 0 ,0 • 0 0 0 - . .-• . 7, N .C7 E ,a) 6 o - -, , o . o 0 'co co o. ... . . •c-- 04 c,, G5- . ..,, 111' i. .- - i ... i 48 2 -c r III ' . = . • :43 .1 2, . . . re▪ C . a . . . • a .. . . . • :.'• O fis (.) i 78 -.... . . . . _ o . - . i cf., 0 . . , co . . i cg .. - ..... i• c • o •.,o . . . a) , . . . EE co . . _ . . . co — • z , r . .. -: 2- -9: •E . • . . . E to c o• . - . . - • • a3 cc E .-. . . . . > s 0 o O - . a) . 0: ..-• c i 7-) 0 • • . a) .,-,a3 ca' •c i .- . . 0 ,3 ;I) :P % . — a. e . 54.I' 5, :C - - to co 0 a . — . • to o "a) .E v '5 Ec 6 13 g . . . .. I; E' co • . Li. co < i ic . .. . - • c .. . c v cc, ca c.. 4_0 • - . . bc - 7 f/ ' '., 2.. >-. • • -0 CI c' C' C I . . i ■(3) . c t 7 7 7 171 E 0 0 0• • •. . i UC) RI . : a) o• r • . ... 0. .ii 0 i ol 0) o • a c . . . 0 . . Proposed Transit Projects'for Transportation Plan TAC'list - ;Sonoma CountyTransit •• . FY 2008 -api Natural Gas,Bus Replacement j $6;918 0001 County i;1.`1 FY 2009 - 35Natural Gas Bus Replacement � -_ ` $450,000 County . FY 2012 - 30' Natural Gas Bus Replacement_ _A $1,661,0001 County iFY 2012- 40'Natural Gas Bus Replacement i $6,918,0001 County FY'2014---40' Natural Gas;Bus,Replacement, • i $6,157,000; County • r, FY 2014 40' OTR Coach Replacement 11 $624,0001 County I FY 2020 - 40' Natural Gas'Bus Replacement l $11,179,0001 County FY 2021 - 35' Natural Gas Bus Replacement $700,000 County 'FY 2024 - 30' Natural Gas Bus Replacement J --- $2,368,0001 County ' 1 FY 2024 - 40' Natural Gas Bus Replacement l $6,710,0001 _County FY 2026 -40' Natural Gas Bus Replacement $6,157,0001' County' - � . ;FY 2026 - 40' OTR Coach Replacement - $890 000; County • Annual Operations _ _ _ $9,000,000/yri County ;Expand Transit Operations &Maintenance Facilities $8,000,0001 County ;Phase I Capital Bus Expansion $6,600,000; County . ,Phase I:Service Expansion on Rtes-20, 30, 44/48 &60 $770,0001_ County i ;Phase II Capital Bus Expansion $4,450,0001 County ;Phase II Service-New Express;on Rtes 20, 30, 44/48 &60 $385,0001 County Phase III Capital Bus Expansion — _ _� $2,200,0901 County , ' • • Phase III Service- Expand Local Transit Service i. $400,000 County —'i ;Phase IV Capital Bus Expansion _ _ $1,000,000 County • ;Phase IV.Service- New Feeder"S'ervice for Rail t $400,000]' County ,. . !Petaluma Transit ;New Bus Purchases (2001& 2013) 1 $5;000;0001 Petaluma I Increase Hours,of Transit Service_ j $400,000/yr Petaluma it Increase Transit Facilities Various Loc'in Pet., $600,000 rPetaluma ;Feeder Service to Railroad/Park and Ride I $150,000/yrj Petaluma ;Santa Rosa.Transit -. , Paratransit Fleet Expansion 2002,`2005, 2008„ 1 1 $1,080,0001 Santa Rosa Paratransit Fleet Replacement'- 2004 $300;000 Santa Rosa Paratransit Fleet Replacement 2010 ! $390 0001 Santa Rosa ` i Paratransit Fleet Replacement-2016 j $510;000 ' Santa Rosa i Transit Transfer Facilities-various years $8;000;000 _ Santa Rosa I • !Bus Maintenance Facility Expansion 2002/03 1 _- $2,625,000 Santa Rosa --- 'Transit Support Vehicles-various years ! $350,0001 Santa Rosa New RoutesitilGroWin16 Areas of Santa Rosa - 2004 $1,0,77,0001 Santa Rosa ;Replacement BusiFleet'-2010 1 $9,100,0001 Santa Rosa ;Replacement Bus Fleet'- 2022 13,000,0001 Santa Rosa 5 Expansion Buses -2003 $1,375,0001 Santa.Rosa -1 - Bus Servoe,lmprovemerits -'2004 l . • $1„978,0001 Santa Rosa Continuation of Bus-Service/Paratransit Service $5,750,000/yrl Santa,Rosa ; Golden Gate Transit Project .Port Sonoma Ferry ans on of Sonoma t IcMarin service," 1 TBD;Golden Gate Transit] P Expansion of Sonoma to San Francisco service TBD Golden Gate Transit!' • • , Rehab yard in Sonoma County _ _ _ TBD I Golden Gate Transit; j 1 33 • • • SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • STAFF REPORT • DATE: April 9,,2001 • TO: Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) FROM: Suzanne Wilford, Executive Director • SUBJECT: ITEM XI: GARVEE Bonds ISSUE: What further information is available about Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds? Shall the SCTA pursue a strategy that employs the use of GARVEE bonds and the 2002 STIP for • projects on Highway 101? BACKGROUND: At the March SCTA meeting, staff,presented an overview of a potential new funding mechanism called Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle or GARVEE. This approach to funding the capital costs associated with transportation projects could provide-funding for projects in an expedited manner. The presentation in March included.basic information about what GARVEE bonds are and how they may be utilized. Staff was asked to come back to the SCTA with more detailed information about: • types of projects the bonds can be:used.for • Sonoma County's bonding capacity under GARVEE - • the costs associated with bonding • the savings of early project delivery • how GARVEE bonds could impact other projects 1) 'What types of projects can,GARVEE?bonds be used for? GARVEE bonds can only be issued for capital elements,of a project, be it on a highway or a transit project, and the projects must meet all STIP requirements. State and federal gas tax revenues fund the STIP. Both sources have constraints attached to them. State gas tax funds cannot,be used for transit projects, but can be used for highway projects. Federal gas tax funds can be used for transit capital elements such,as rolling stock and station sites as well as highway,projects.. • For each STIP cycle'there;is;an accounting that determines how much of the STIP fund estimate can be used for transit without harming the•state/federal match'requirements or using state gas tax funds.There maybe occasions where a transit project cannot be funded:in the STIP because there are insufficient'federal funds available. • In order to utilize GARVEE bonds for a project MTC must include,the project in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the project must meet with CTCapproval. To date, passenger rail ' is not an eligible■project in the RTP'because there is no local source of funds for operating. Efforts .arabeingnade to_inctude the_projectin.the2001RTP update_this_year,hutdemonstrating_sufficienL._._. 137• • • operating;funds without a;sales tax measure in place is not possible. The CTC has historically indicated it does not support expending capital funds on a transit project that can no show revenue source for operating,the project Proposition 116 funds provide an example d capital funds that havebeen made available for the SMARTrail projectbutcannotbe accessed'until operating revenues are secured. It is clear the GARVEE funds can be used for capital;elements of a highway project but unlikely they could be employed for a transit project until a local source of funds are available for operating • purposes. 2) How much can the SCTA anticipate being able to bond for and what is the cost/benefit analysis+:for doing so? Staff has been in contact with theCTC on this issue,and-very preliminary estimates indicate that up to$135 trillion could beavailable.over 15,years if the SCTA desired to commit all of the STIP funds available to the County for that period of tirrie. Additional work needs to be completed on the interestcosts associated with bonding compared to the savings in inflation and the economic,and safety benefit of having the infrastructure:;in place. Staff is working with MTC and the CTC to develop this information and will present the latest • information at the.SCTA meeting. _ • • 3) How does the ;proposal to issue GARVEE bonds impact the ability-to-fund other projects? • • • While this is primarily a policy question as to what GARVEE.bonds are issued;for,-there are some technical points.that help provide context for a decision to use this mechanism for Highway 101 projects. First,the Regional Transportation Plan;(RTP)has long assumed that STIP funds would be used for widening Highway 101. The STIP is'the only available source of funds that allows for capacity increasing road projects. It is also the largest source of funds available to roads. Sonoma-County receives approximately $10 million annuallythroughte SlIP By way of companson, transit in • Sonoma County receives,approximately$18:million annually via the % cent statewide sales tax. Since 1998, the SCTA has programmed over$21 million in federal funds'through:the STP/CMAQ and TEA,programs to local street and road projects and transit. Issuing GARVEE bonds would not impacteitherof;those.programs'in-the future. Second,by demonstrating to the state•and federal governments that there is strong commitment to funding locally significant projects on Highway 101 there isan increased likelihood;of receiving state and federal discretionary funds for the Marin/Son ma Narrows project. Finally,'byreducing r the overall listof projects that need-funding the potential foa,scaled-back•sales tax measure is heightened. This is an issue that can be further examined by the ad-hoc • subcommittee. • If the S-CTA determinesiit`is appropriate to pursuea strategy that utilizes GARVEE bonds there are several preliminary steps that will need to be accomplished. Staff is seekirig direction on several items: • Requesting Caltrans to provide oversight on the development of two Project Study Reports for the segments of Highway 101 that currently do not have such studies. Attached is a copy'of the preliminary letter sent to Caltrans about PSR requests for the ' 2002 STIP. Under this scenario, the SCTA would hire la'project manager(consultant)to oversee the deVelopmentof;the PSRs. The PSRs would be done by a consulting firm and paid for,by the;SCTA. MTC has committed $270,000 in funds to the SCTA for this purpose and it is likely that a local contribution of $50,000 would be necessary to complete the work. Also,attached is a spreadsheet that shows how a$50,000 request would be divided amongthe cities,and County if the population/road mile formula was applied. Authorizing the Executive Director to issue:a Request for Qualifications, hold interviews and select a project manager for oversight of the development of both PSRs. This authorization could set a limit of not to exceed '$50,000 and require the Executive Director to report back to the SCTA Executive Committee prior to executing a contract. • Developing and issuing a Request for Proposals for the PSR work in conjunction with , the project manager and:members of the TAC. This authorization could set a limit of not • to exceed $250;000 and require the Executive Directorto•reportback to the SCTA Executive Committee prior to executing a contract. • REQUESTED ACTION: Review the staff report and provide direction on how to proceed. • • • • • 1 Lie SCTA. SONOMA COUNTY • TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY March 26, 2001 Directors • Tom McDonnell Mike Kern.,Chair Caltrans District Four sonar,.coUsry Robert Jahn,V.Chair Office of Transportation Planning A =Lo.ena,u Mail Station 8-D • •Joe Costello 111 Grand Avenue 5a Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Geoffrey Fog coise Attention'. Sandy•Wong Mark Gleason HEFL nseuma Dear Mr. McDonnell: Mike Healy PeTM x A Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter of January 29, 2001 regarding Project Paul Kelley Study Reports(PSR/PDS)for the.2002•STIP cycle.The SCTA will take up this issue formally on •lc;Mack•nzle April 9, 2001, but please accept this letter as a preliminary response. nIT M1 Robinson In the past the-SCTA has relied-solely upon Caltrans'to develop project:study reports for large Au projects seeking funding in the STIP. This year however the SCTA request is focused on Sam stirs Caltrans oversight of PSR/PDS',developmentfortwo;projects`.in the Highway 101 Corridor. The Tim Smith SCTA will be developing a.PSR/PDS for-the following segments: so..OMA COUNT! Sharon Wright • Highway 101 widening and improvements.from Steele Lane north-to Windsor River s '^n°° Road • Highway 101 widening and improvements from Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma north to,the-Rohnert Park'Expressway • In addition to the oversight of the above-mentioned projects, the SCTA is requesting that Caltrans assign resources to develop a PSR/PDS for a safety improvement project on - Highway 116,between Sonoma and Petaluma. This complex yet,critical project is a likely candidate for future STIP and"SHOPP funds. • Thank,you"for your assistance in helping Sonoma County deliver highway improvement projects. We look forwardto;working.withyou:in the coming`months. If you have any questions about this SCTA Staff , request'or require further information, please contact me at 707/565-5373. Suzanne Wilford Sincerely; - -uacuw.Dints, ^ • Janet nn Tw onrao P.44454 en Jeanette Woo d (V l ■ D M \111Y111/ "`Assi504T Suza e •rd MenDOC140ARtHu5 Executive Director, SCTA zoo ue7 Rosa. 05601 PX:.707-565.5373 PAX. 707-565.5370 Cc:. Chris Brittle„MTC • --- Helena"Lenka” Culik-Caro, Caltrans {I F\WPDOCS\CALTRANS\P,SR request for.2002 STIP.d r'- oc ) I I „,, . . . • . . . • , . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ... . . . - . . . • . . . . . . • . . CZ • .= 0 1.0 CO •C•J 00 U) ,O) CO., 0) CD 0 . e• cr)„tr) r o C>I C:7) cr) d- S '0 E c in Lo. 0 ..,71- r r co co N. co 0 ” r 71-- cc; O' 0 . 7. . . r N LO , = • • u. S2 ir- CD *Cs . i . • . 0 , 0 • . . . - - V 69. A-I al . . .... - 0 CO: la LO CD I.0 •ct• •vt N 0 CNI .0. • . • lk 2 m" h" 0 .0)1-N d- C.0 0 CO 0) S', •0 '''' 0 .00 ICO' Tr .N e-, 1.0" cs) r.- a) in o •- o. • cn c 2 RI .<—, <d;- ,cN CO CO, CO r N--- co r,.... ,o . . — to o COC■1000d- 0, C 0 -0 = • • 03 0. 6-O. 6 6 d ci O O ci o ... .. 1 3 8‘171 0 0 C (15 re CL ....,P \E.!• = = 0-... 0 . . LL fa o 0 tr) ,in " . • . 0 • ft; 0 0 ,...... • 0 w Pi CU gi (7 0 "F, —rri Ln cli Ck- 0 a in ,-, - ' E t it o co ,- — ..-o ,... ...-. 13 , Ir. 4'4 = CD er, ft C CO' 4--• . '3/4-1 c ..,..w RS 0 -0 CI. '717_ -- .;::: CO "-. _C c _O C: c „D . . 0 0 C) 0 Co 0 0' !...7 ,0 Ui u) a) cf) 0 = . , - - . • . . • • - 1 A3 . • . • S. iqo . ,.1.. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . l".• . . . • 0 ... . . . . 1 . . . . . . - . I. . . . . . I . . , I. . . . I . . - ■ . . . ... . . 1 . . . . . - . . . . . . . . : . . . . r . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . -.. • . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . I . . . I . . . I .. . 0 . . ., .. . . . . • .... . . 1 I . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ... . . . . - - • • • 1 • ICI • • • - • • • • . • 4. • S.ONOMA,COUNTYTIRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • • - • STAFF REPORT - •• • • • • - • • • DATE: April 9, 2001 • TO: Sonoma Couiitsi Transportation-Authority (SCTA) • FROM: Suzanne VVilford, EXecutive Director • SUBJECT: ITEM XII: Project Delivery Report •• ISSUE! . What is the status of previously programmedjprojects? BACKGROUND: - - The SCTA is responsiblefforprogramining nurnerotissoUrceSof transportation funds, including the • • - Surface,Transportation Program r(STP) and the,CongestiortMitigation/AirQuality (CMAQ) program. The SCTA also is responsible for monitoring the delivery of local projects once they have been _ funded. - 110, • The attached lists of projects show how well;Sonorna aiunty is obligating funds in a timely manner. ' The region has set strict obligation deadlines for STP/CMAQ projects for the pre-cycle funds, the .,cycle one funds and the cycle twolands. _ • • - • The deadline for pre-cycle projectslhatireceived an extension is■April 1, 2001. There are three - projects that must meetthis:deadline. At the time this report was written; two of the three projects ' had met the deadline and one was still pending. A full report willbe provided to the SCTA at the meeting. . . The next deadline for obligating funds,is September 30, 2001 for those projects programmed in cycle one Theiattached Usti-show&there are very few projects that have been obligated. Staff is • working with Project sponsors to determine if outside assistance may be required to ensure obligationidatewcan be met- In order to Obligqte•kinds4aAiglsdictior) must work with Caltrans Local Assistance and meet a certain level of review on the'project(i.e. environmental work, afield review, etc.). Once the',jurisdiction has. , met the requireinenth of Caltrans, the funds are said to obligated. The obligation deadline of September 30, 2001 means work must be in to :Caltrans by September 1 in order for them to process the work. • If fundsare not obligated on time they are lost to the County and are returned to MTC. MIC,recently approved a policy that funnels any returned funds to the Transportation for Livable Communities • Program. 11111 REQUESTED ACTION: ! • This is,an informationalitern,only. _ _ • - - - - - - - -- • • - • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • a - 1 •S. - METROPOLITAN JoceP6.P.:Bon Mctive-enter, TRANSPORTATION 101&gfich5c • 006'0A,C194607-4700 t. MMT55ION, Tc1 510.464-7700 • CQ..."._�._ TDDfl T:S10.46 .7769 _ • Fax 510.464.7848 ' • Memorandum TO: Partnership Finance Comnuttee DATE: March 22,2001 , --FR: Alix Bockelman-. - - . ;RE:. STP/CMAQ Obligation Report First Cycle Funds"with Deadline of 9/30/2001 v As you know,the Commission7eitablishet a project delivery:policy last year that requires . jurisdictions to meet regional:deadlines or risk losing transportation funding. Project'sp6nsors: did well in meeting the deadlines-established for the STP Pre-Cycle program,and•no fiinding 'has-been lost date The next deadline is fast.approaching—September30,2001 —for . -projects programmed as part of�Me First Cycle STP/CMAQ•program(MTC Resolution_No 3156;iadopted inMay-1999). - Attached'is a list of the projects included In the Virst Cycle STP/CMAQ'progcam(or • --. tl amended in through,a TIP amendment)'and their;obligation status. As you:will- - subsequen y ' see on the summary sheet,the region had only obligatect25%o€the:funds as of December 31, t 2000. . E:. This report is a first drat}„using;;data from`Caltrans'obligation reports. In the coming month, • MTC staffwill'be reviewing the material more direfully Urid Cal cans'staff to ensure.that all- ,obligations have been accurately asstgned'�to Projects. In addition,if you are aware of an obligation that is not capti red'accurately.in,the report,please feel free,to email Alit ° . . Bockelmaa(abockelman(almtc:ca.gov)or Ross McKeown`(nuckeowna;intc:ca.gov)awith the . updated information. • I - . ..FlomodblMemosVetlaitiaoiitlacaabagstioo zdoq i Li.9 FjRS;T`DRA'FT " Regional'Summarv-'iof First"CV-de STPICMAQLOblictations, Obligations through:DeceinbeN31 2000• - '' -- STP Funds ,. 1 1 : • • tgaUont • no••percentage' ga Total,Programming ,Amount, Obligated Balancer e rA ` ;807 `: "_o4 i it. % , a x58,04 79 '° Alameda County 17,576,090 `8;613,958 . 49% 8;962;132 ContraCosta,County 14,699,375' . 7243,502 • 49% . 7,455,873-' MarinCounty ' • 4,415;183 ,416265' 9% 3;998;918' Napa County _ 2,326;910 961;0001 41% 1265;910 San"Francesco 9;553264- 1,958;000 20% 7,595264: ' San Mateo ' • 11884,356c 1;559;000, . 13% 10;325;356 . • Santa Clara, _ 7;036,126 ' ' 0% 7,036,126' Sotano County. : 7,716;800? 1;001;000 . t3% ' 6;715,800 S�onon�iia-`.Cyoounty. 5,590A00 1 004,000, 18% 4586000 - , Eb/yfs;p[S:�ltR- . ',:- . - ". i; - -1�jyFl _ Jlai.a all Sid rf .fit_;tp ' Total 1stCycte STP Program 83,846,011 23,766,725 28% - 60,089,286 CMAQ Funds . . . . --,. , tga;.n -- cert .ew -ge: - Ino71 , tr.: , .Total,Programndno " . .: Amount .Obligated' . • Balance . • E r P a I!It 11 --:-1-7:111:17:1-ST. i( 1'r11t rc "_". ... ,tt 1,170, . 410 300,000- 26% 870,410. ' w,r4a Costa .. - - w L - — . a _ — • 4308;000, 4,308,oao San Mateo : i� . 20,591 a' Santa Clara; , : 60.0861 . E Sonoma - 11 . ,• -al p,n•, 1ti !r IE�,If F ll L°1 I ( i ( { fs t�, I I . . r \ rl ili LLIIIlt 714 '[ IA� 1 t b061x, _ ',9 } ,'', t Lc c l ' ii J, {r 'j tLy. ?L 0 .4 $}t - :) 3,,}41, 1-•�• , n..- • * . • , f' 118,496°,0.12 24,838.825. a�• Total Funds s Ir°'4•,.. o. : - .: ..6 . 1!777 . •: ;',61x.6 !$ is — Total,ProgranimIng Ainoiott. ' Phi?! Alm.-cf.' • C75y^2 -c r _ 77:177-1:.h7;0 xr 4, F 'I SP1 ✓)I 5 r "_` tkl a. 161746500 6;913,958 x'12 �Q-.. ...'1'1.7717.11.11111111.11 14:698 76" T 43502 !r. Ct': .4016483: '416,265,a , 9s9 U1$ . ,t 2;'3267a10 _ 961,0001 1$S$. 0`: San . .. A• . " _ 11188056 1A59,000 'k°= • . StmtaClara 27927, 26 ,., i 9.8621800 . 13/4061•086 d - Sonoma County, 8 . 000 1 ,000 1.6, 4 ° ''� x247, l l. � r 1°, rl 71 .r . M.F a"i l 1� �4 aor r tb } (r )• .:_t: XY)LU `b1. ^IlD7et-t,i r F 1?,:i, It IrA ryn il - 6) 1 .,.• t c cc 1 �, +lilt .57x2527 F.rt'f.Y'1 r r . .r. 7 S.._4t.'* •, , t}I, • otal First CyclePreigiam ^ 202,342,023 48;695,550 " 711Y. Li? ' i .. ... °,^41 it ra r A f1 (-.. at � �. • ,. Attachment 1 �, •First Cycle.STPICMAO,Obligation Status-STP Funds Only Obligations through 1213112000 -. --.- . - • Fund Source_ ;Programming:; Amount ' Obligation'Cate U Balancee' . :,,Status TIP ID, ` Sponsor :Project Name -- _ . Pennsylvania Aye_• : - - I • - ,.. - - 550.000. . STP-FY99RE • -550,000 . . a .. SOL991021 Fai eld • rehabilitation. ,Main Street • a ' SOC991022 Rio Vista �? rehabilitation STP-FY99RE 158000 218,000 60.000 RR'Ave Rehab-sunse. I - 200;0!)0' STP-Pf99RE I 200,000 • - - - SOL991023• Suisun C to:E'-TehorAVe , ' _ "Peabody Rd- STP-FY99RE 474,4rr 474;000 _.;9/1112000 400 SOL991024 Vacaville . rehabilitation - - -. - • ' Fairgrounds Drive - • , — - 424,000 - SOL991025'-. Vallejo overlay . STP-FY99RE 53 S0L991029 Valtelo Bus rehab. STP FY99RE ?. 531, t l 1000 Bus facdy 221.200'; a SO1991030 •Vallejo maintenance rehab.. STP-FY99RE 221 • BaYfmk Fetry 501991032 Vallejo Ba4tenanceFaadY: STPF99RE :2 : t r < ., , ` '248,200' ` .- - , Solaro 1 PleasantValey Road •STp FY99RE 601991033 CoinnH --ettabpno}ect _ -- 601.99107A Benicia Road Rehab - • _ , • Sou t STP-FY99RE:• ' _ 306,if,$O991074 Count, I 80 re9ever ton4alre.Te^"" S1P D F190. 1 7 t r a 451 OOD. 601:970032 ° STA Road _- ,— - :, . Highwayl2conld?r` _ tom!; !madams cud t rSTP-0FY9S 1:700.000 ■ sotto-room Rosa Interchange. , .. RSW5%set-sub for ` • . , STP-FY99RE-, sao,000 • a g0t1970081 Son Co TA • ,: . 300. Sonoma RL 1?l121 ca16e .' :.• 4 • 11'1' '..0.�, - _ ... • 60!1990039' Com!H, 14814 Stoat 6014991001 Cblretilabt Rahabtaita9or _ STP+Y99RE , ._ 174".. - 1T4.000..• Old Redwood Highway . 17 , I. .; STRFY99RE. ' 174;1 I r :' 4000' 5014991002 Cotag . Rehab • 1Hdaldsbta0 Avetnie STP FY99RE , 174' t . T4'0o0 $0149911004.._ Heald$ :'+ Wt&n Rohnett. Ca11911aCOleab' i 217:00!` STP-FY99RE' 2171"' 991005' Pack �co44210 10041700 10Rb11999 s• SON 901002. S0P 991007 _ Santa Rosa *Gab Phase 1 STRFY99RE 1.004.,r 6 _•• ,. STP.Fy99RE : _,004 ..I �. a $014991008' Santa Rosa r.°. Phase 2 , 0(upb3S - 22T• . $014991009 Sebastopol streets' � .- ..imurmv 52 Pws7afa . ..rt.iiwtirotm _ . Cr a . Attachment - First Cycle STPICMAQ Obligation States'-STP Funds Only Obligationsii Trough?i/311±000 • ; - Total ;Obligation_ • • Obligation. Onotihgated Status: TIP'ID - 'Sponsor ' ' Project Name . Fund Source Programming; Amount ,Date. Saari-96e 4Fifth'Street.West. -. - ._ 1 •a SON9910100 Sonoma Overlay STP-FY99RE .�: : 260,000j' Sonoma ,Stony Point road, '' I • • - - . ,._.. 2:009.000 . a `' SON991011 County Stage 38 - STP-FY99RE 2,009,000 a ' SON991013. Windsor Hembree lane:Oveilay Si -FY99RE .42,0004;_. ' Los'Amigos Road 42.000 ' ' STP-FY99RE,.. 07[0001. a _ SON991014'. Windsor Overlay 87,000 a ' SON991016 Windsor Conde tine Overla ' STP-FY99RE:_ , - 102,0001 - _ 102'000, a . , SON991016 1,Windsor Starr Road;Overlay STP-FY99RE { . 1,16,000. • 116;000: i . . : .. —_ — 133 I16¢ gfilWlt _ � r r Database Qlleti voA11 Plat attir Ja+,4, r `I Attachment 12 r • • • •1 r 1 I• , • . ' (includes 98 TLC GOAO projects 0oes'notinclude 9971C CMAQ). - Obligations through 1 213112 0 0 0 Total Obligation Obligation, Unobligatad' T1P 10 „Spenser' Project Name Fund'Source progiannIng 'Amount: Date Balance Wacavtlle IAlamo Cieek'Ctass 1 CMAOSOI, 350,000 I' 350,000 obligation 501.991078 deadline 9/30110 - .lake Path _ _ - 1. ..• it NTRI.psi- 52' - ci �:� , :$ .. •tt°Gg's--. r ..', .+�v �- .d �-'�.�erTT T ry -egez.,',. ',250 000 11 ;250,000 7 SOt4990038 -..ICity of Sonoma.'' Classl8ike.Path "E 99CGCMAQ. MacArthur/Napa,Rd �� •- 500.000 . 50N990040,-.ISanta Rosa+ ' Santa Rosa Creek Multi-99CC-CMAQ.c 500,000, f Use path ., 14.164 ' Seplember-991 135036' SON990041. ,Santa Rosa: Colgan Leek gassl .99CC-CMAO - • S0N990042 P Biist _ 0 -- - ,I 720.000 _ Petaluma' ,East Washington Street 99CGCMAO 1 720,000.,E - . Bike:419 ,I - . SON 9 9100 6. ; Petaluma Transit Operations 99RE CMAa : .651- .000; . .. ' -,-- 1 '651.0.00' -. Center : SON991012 Son Co Transit COMPRESSED 99RECMAO .816.000 .916000 NATURAL. AS(CNG) 9936CMAQ G -- . BUS PURCHAS.`. - - -. . . .302.000 " - _ I 0 . SON991048] i Sena Rosa: - FOUR BUS 9&18-CMAU:' .. : - ' PROCURREMENT.: -00 ;31B.409 .• - -• -"1087 Swans Co9ray Co batOleek Class g9CC-CMAQ„ 335.000 • 18:691 'H0 '—_,.-a ,• .- .i. ,,,1 Sena Rosa "Muth Design'&Vision°°.. 98T1-C AUtO_ • 'b00.000! 800.000 SeptemLU-0O .. -� - - �-< - , . • • • • bratluan Papa E ab Y°rmo1. • c • • .. ., . - . • .. . . . . . , . . . . •• . 111 • - . . . • . _ . SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY • .. • - - • STAFF R.E Pi a R T • i-, • . . „ . , • . • DATE: April 9, .,2001 - • . , TO: Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) . • . - . . . FROM: Suzanne VVilford, Executive Director . . . . SUBJECT: ITEM XIII: FTA•Section 5310 Paratrinsit'Projects -. . . lSSUE: : • - - .-- ' What is the status of FY"2001/2002,FTA Section 5310 funds for Sonoma County? - • BACKGROUND:. - . ''-' • ' - ,-„ Federal Transit Act•Section 5310 provides funds to non-profits.anthpublic agencies for the '.; purchase of paratransit Vans,and related equipment for th&disable'd arid.elderly. This is an • annual process that involves project sponsors, the Paratransit Coordinating Committee, MTC .4. _. . and Caftans. ' r , :.• ' 0 . _.. ., . . .1 Projects were submitted by February 27. Each request was scored based on evaluation guidelines and scoring criteria prescribed by Caltrens.,As a pointotreferehce,,Becoming Independent had one funded project last cycle that•hact:a regional score of 86. . ' MTC is scheduled to adopt the final isting on APril'25, 2001_ The approved list will be forwarded to the CTC, which will reviewthe applications this summer. • ' . • . FTA Section 5310 FY 260112002,Scorinq Table Applicant Project Cost Request= 60%Cost Project Score _ . Small Bus $45,000 $36,000 79 Becoming ndent . Small Bus $45,000 $36,000 79 Indepe , - • Ra'clio System $33;700 $26,960 74 Van $45;000 $36,000 77 The Middle Way Minivan '$40,000 _ $32,000 70 Minivan $40;000 $32,000 . 70 • Friends House Modified Van $47,000. $37,600 • 75 . • REQUESTED ACTION This item is for information only No action is required. /55 MAY 0' 7 2001; 2 -, -scur,y CF iRcTi,71., 1 FrancisAAnderson•. - , Jamesi-Anderson. _,_ . . . c.,,,„. i. 'i , , i : w� .'?/,- . . 196 Cinnabar,Road _ = Petaluma, CA'94952 - ' . CITY` r LLLi � \ J OFFICE ICr Petaluma City Council - . 11-English.Street Petaluma CA 94952: • y �,,,-� _ May'4'; 2001 . Dear Petaluma CityCouncil ,'"„`. ` `. '” "� We are writing to you with-regard to-plans for am interchange and:cross-town connector *,in the Corona Reach area of this city., Since we own approximately 14 acres in the . ' -c Corona,Reach we'areivery interested_indecisions-which;may affect!the.development of that area. • ' Our property'has been in our familycsince the 1880s: We;have lived+inost of:the past • .: - eight decades in the house onthat property. We'believe that prior to our settling here there existed an Indian village on or near the property as-evidenced by the presence of a - ,grinding',rOCks. .t - e '& +'L .1... q,.,,,,,' . + 7 .�_- yv � - ;- �' CS - r 3't t T , .` r ,'_: r*.- •� 2 ..7"r y� ' 9-c.* ) \ "' t7. Some of the most distinctive features of the land are the stands of native Valley - . oaks(quercus lobata).as weltas Coast`five oaks(quercus agrifolia).--In addition to fox.and deer, the area is home to a great numberof bird:species including'finches, yellow warblers,;goldfinches,western bluebirds, barn swallows, scrub jays,mockingbirds, crows, doves, wild,turkeys:and pheasants, various-hawks, seasonial wildducks, and:a pair•' "'� of white tailed kites that have nested 'the oak trees a ainthis. ear. - Our concern is that:should the-Interchange and Crosstown connector be developed it . would require condemnation of part•or all of our land. We believe that would be a great: • loss..to'ourselves, as welt as to the community. We encourage you to considereamore appropriate development of the Corona Reach that would respect'the natural habitat, history•andEbeauty;of the.area. Sincerely, d� %�' ::r._ • • •, 4