MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP AGENDA

Transcription

1 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP Wednesday, October 11, :00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Gilroy City Council Chambers 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA AGENDA 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on the next agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY REGULAR AGENDA 4. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 16, INFORMATION ITEM Receive reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff. 6. INFORMATION ITEM Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange area. 7. INFORMATION ITEM Updates on SR 25 Interim Improvements. 8. ACTION ITEM Overall Status/Work plan Update/Next Steps. 9. ADJOURN If you have any questions about the Mobility Partnership, please contact VTA Community Outreach Department at (408) , TTY (408) , or e- mail HUcommunity.outreach@vta.orgUH.

2 Mobility Partnership October 11, 2017 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those requiring accommodations or accessible media for this meeting should notify the Board Secretary s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (408) or board.secretary@vta.org or TTY (408) VTA s Homepage is located on the web at: or visit us on Facebook Uhttp://

3 MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP Wednesday, August 16, 2017 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Vice-Chairperson Muenzer in the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Representing Status Larry Carr Member County of Santa Clara Present Jaime De La Cruz Member County of San Benito Present Dan Harney Member County of Santa Clara Present Peter Leroe-Muñoz Member County of Santa Clara Present Jerry Muenzer Vice -Chairperson County of San Benito Present Ignacio Velazquez Member County of San Benito Present A quorum was present. 2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS There were no public presentations. 3. ORDERS OF THE DAY 4. APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016 On General Consensus, and there being no objection, the Mobility Partnership Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2016 were approved. Members Leroe-Muñoz and De La Cruz abstained. 5. REVIEW AND APPROVE NEW MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION INCLUDING SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE- CHAIRPERSON Vice-Chairperson Muenzer opened up nominations from the floor. Member Carr nominated Vice-Chairperson Muenzer as Chairperson. Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 6 August 16, 2017

4 M/S/C (Carr/Leroe-Muñoz) to close nominations and elect Jerry Muenzer as the Committee s Vice Chairperson. Chairperson Muenzer opened up nominations from the floor. Chairperson Muenzer nominated Member Carr as Vice-Chairperson. M/S/C (Muenzer/ Leroe-Muñoz) to close nominations and elect Larry Carr as the Committee s Vice Chairperson. On General Consensus and there being no objection, Mobility Partnership Members selected Jerry Muenzer as Chairperson and Larry Carr as Vice-Chairperson. 6. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF Jim Lawson, VTA Director of Public Affairs; Chris Metzger, Project Manager; and Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director, provided updates on sales tax Measure B for Santa Clara County, SB 1 legislation update, Regional Measure 3 and high-speed rail. Discussion: 1. Mr. Jim Lawson provided an update on Santa Clara County s sales tax measure B. The sales tax measure was passed on November 8, 2016 with 71.74% yes votes. The half-cent cents sales tax measure will generate approximately $6.3B in the next thirty (30) years and would allocate $750M to improve key highway interchanges. Approval on implementation guidelines of Measure B is expected to go to the September 2017 Board. However, there is a pending lawsuit on Measure B with an appeal deadline on August 20th. Chairperson Muenzer inquired if the Measure B lawsuit is a challenge based on principle. Mr. Lawson said that basis of lawsuit is on the premise that VTA as a special district cannot propose a general tax. Member Leroe-Muñoz asked on the factors in determining impact on highway project interchanges prioritization. Mr. Lawson said that factors are still being developed to determine project benefits and expeditious use of funds. 2. Mr. Lawson provided update on Regional Measure 3 legislation. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is working with the legislature to authorize a new ballot measure that could increase tolls on the region s seven state-owned toll bridges with the exception of Gold Gate Bridge. If approved by the voters of the nine (9) Bay Area counties, revenues from a toll increase of up to $3 would be used to finance projects that provide benefits to toll bridge corridors. Currently, legislators are seeking input from various stakeholders. NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mobility Partnership Page 2 of 6 August 16, 2017

5 Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if Regional Measure 3 will provide additional funds to Measure B projects. Mr. Lawson answered in the affirmative. Santa Clara County transportation projects are considered for funding through this measure. 2. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on SB 1 programs with focus on implementation schedule. Vice-Chairperson Carr inquired on the entity that will apply for funds. Mr. Lawson opined that it is not yet clearly defined and follow up legislation might be introduced for clarification. VTA Legal Department is still studying the bill language to determine funding application. Projects may be recommended by regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions and the state. Member De La Cruz asked if projects will be competitive. Ms. Gilbert said that local jurisdictions, local cities and counties have allocation for Local Streets and Roads Program. Other programs will be competitive with the exception of Local Partnership Program which has a formula component that still needs to be decided. SB 1 is a long-haul funding program and a stable funding source. Member De La Cruz asked what SBCOG and VTA have done and can do to leverage the limited dollars. Chairperson Muenzer requested the Staff to update the MP members on SB 1 programs development. Member Velazquez opined that SR 152 Trade Corridor project will be very competitive in the Solutions for Congested Corridor Program. Mr. Lawson suggested that SR 152 Trade Corridor project might have an opportunity in the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program which provides funding for corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state. 3. Mr. Metzger provided updates on High Speed Rail (HSR). The Preliminary Preferred Alternative (for San Jose to Merced) is planned to be out by late 2018 and Record of Decision by early Mr. Metzger also reminded that one of the reasons Mobility Partnership has been resurrected is due to discussion with Senator Bell s on SB 1 legislation and to pursue a unified voice on this project. 7. PRESENTATION ON US 101/SR 25 INTERCHANGE AREA Discussions: Mr. Metzger provided presentation on US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential improvements identified in various studies including: SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study Report (2015), SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016) and US 101 Widening Environmental Report (2013). Mobility Partnership Page 3 of 6 August 16, 2017

6 1. Member Leroe-Muñoz inquired on the project timeline of the various presented alternatives. Mr. Metzger opined that for the first option with Measure B funds (state and local money) and already environmentally cleared; design phase will take up to 2 years and construction phase (estimated cost of $60M to $80M) approximately will take 2 to 3 years. Thus, fastest timeline will be 5 years to have improvements in place. If project needs federal clearance, some preliminary work would be required that could take approximately 2 to 3 years extending the process. 2. Member Velazquez asked if it pertains to the design of two (2) left lanes merging with SR 25. Mr. Metzger said that the configuration which is environmentally cleared, has approximately 5-year timeline. However, first phase still needs to be identified which could involve a new structure; relocation of structure and some critical ramp improvements. Flyover is not currently part of the configuration. Flyover could be considered as first phase and would address some of the high demand. 3. Member Velazquez discussed routing of SR 156 and SR 25 and the SR 152 southern route which would help both Santa Clara and San Benito counties. This would create a trade corridor for the SR 152 southern route concept and potentially save additional dollars from what was previously presented. Member Velazquez is more inclined to support with the flyover option that will allow smoother traffic flow albeit offers a longer project timeline. 4. Member De La Cruz inquired on the timeline of the bigger picture project (assess phased approach). Mr. Metzger said that definition of the project s Phase One (1) will take approximately six (6) months and might likely require re-evaluation of environmental impacts. Member De La Cruz also concurs with Member Velazquez to look at the long-term solution or concept. 5. Member Velazquez mentioned that simple fixes on SR 25 can relieve current traffic congestion and could be incorporated within the approach to define the project s Phase Mr. Metzger said that direction from MP members appear to be to look at Phase 1 of US 101/SR 25 interchange that is consistent and supports the future SR 152 Trade Corridor Project. 7. Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if Phase 1 of SR 152 Trade Corridor will help the US 101/SR 25 Interchange. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative. The direct connector, and associated first phase of the ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor which could contribute to improvements at the US 101/SR 25 Interchange. Vice-Chairperson Carr said that in order to adhere to Measure B guidelines, proposed Phase 1 project should contribute to US 101/SR 25 Interchange improvements and to the project (US 101 Widening) previously environmentally cleared. Mobility Partnership Page 4 of 6 August 16, 2017

7 8. PRESENTATION ON CITY OF GILROY TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENTS Discussions: Michael Fisher, City of Gilroy Transportation Engineer, provided presentation on City of Gilroy transportation improvements. 1. Member Velazquez expressed hope that future plans would include pedestrian and bike trail that would connect Morgan Hill, San Jose to San Benito County. 9. NEXT STEPS Discussion: Chris Metzger, Project Manager, discussed workplan updates, next steps and action items. 1. Chairperson Muenzer asked if project alignment with High Speed Rail would result to limited economic activity. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative. 2. Member Leroe-Muñoz prefers the MP members to decide first on the alternative and design structure in terms of prioritization. 3. Chairperson Muenzer noted that the Board of Supervisors in San Benito County adopted a resolution rescinding a previous resolution that supported a northern alternative. This will pave way to study other alternatives. 4. Member Velazquez requested the Staff to update new MP members on various alternatives. 5. Mr. Metzger suggested in the coming months to focus on the US 101/SR 25 Interchange and the SR 152 southern route. 6. Chairperson Muenzer requested for another Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) presentation to benefit and update new members. 7. Vice-Chairperson Carr said that first priority should be to set the direction to improve US 101/SR 25 interchange and the ultimate layout to lead into the SR 152 Trade Corridor. SR 152 Trade Corridor design, funding (P3, tolling option, etc.) and JPA formation should also be addressed in the workplan. 8. Member Velazquez asked if forming a JPA would speed up or slow down the process. Mr. Lawson suggested that the MP proceed in its current path as a committee. Mobility Partnership Page 5 of 6 August 16, 2017

8 10. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS Discussions: 1. Members requested that next meetings be scheduled for October 11, 2017 (Wednesday) and January 10, 2018 (Wednesday) at 9:00 a.m. in the City of Gilroy. Specific location to be determined. 11. ADJOURNMENT On the order of Chairperson Muenzer, and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca de Leon VTA Highway Program Mobility Partnership Page 6 of 6 August 16, 2017

9 Memo on Agenda Item 5 Date: October 11, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Director of Engineering and Transportation Program Delivery; Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director Receive reports from VTA and SBCOG staff INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive report from VTA and SBCOG staff on items related to the Mobility Partnership. BACKGROUND: Staff from VTA and SBCOG to provide status update on the following: Sales tax measure for Santa Clara County Measure B Sales tax measure for San Benito County State legislation update (SB 1) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Measure 3 High Speed Rail update

10 Memo on Agenda Item 6 Date: October 11, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Chris Metzger, Project Manager Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange area INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation on US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential Phase 1improvements consistent with various studies including: US 101 Widening Environmental Report (2013) SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study Report (2015) SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016) BACKGROUND: See attached presentation and attachments.

11 Memo on Agenda Item 7 Date: October 11, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief Updates on SR 25 Interim Improvements INFORMATION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Receive progress updates on SR 25 interim improvements. Proposal: Restrict Bolsa Road left turns to southbound SR 25 Next Steps: - Existing Traffic Data (Santa Clara County to provide) - Outreach: Property Owners / California Highway Patrol (CHP) / Public - Other: Traffic Calming on Bolsa Road BACKGROUND: Oral report to be provided.

12 Memo on Agenda Item 8 Date: October 11, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mobility Partnership Chris Metzger, Project Manager Overall Status/Workplan Update/Next Steps ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Approve workplan updates, next actions, and action items per today s meeting. BACKGROUND: See attached workplan document and potential future activities/decisions. Based on this workplan and discussions held at the meeting, agree upon next steps.

13 Work Plan Status October 11, 2017 Original Work Plan Element Status Next Action 1. Review New Alignment Concepts for SR 152 Two Alternative Corridors defined: PSR corridor and Southern corridor per July 19, 2016 meeting. 2. Assess Potential Near Term Funding Opportunities 3. Workshop on Institutional/Governance Topics 4. Assess Opportunities to Coordinate with High Speed Rail Potential Funding for US 101/SR 25 I/C from Santa Clara County Measure B Sales Tax Measure November, State transportation funding bill SB 1. Considering application to FASTLANE Grant program. San Benito County Future Sales Tax. Received report(s) for MP meetings conducted on the following 2016 dates: March 9, September 14, and November 9. Received report at May 11, 2016 meeting. Regular updates planned. HSR supportive of improving 152 to provide access to Gilroy Station, but does not see nexus to help fund from HSR funds. Southerly SR 152 provides less obvious opportunities. 5. Establish and implement Outreach Plan Draft Plan presented at September 14, Report on initial outreach at November 9, 2016 MP meeting. 6. Review and define actions in pursuing Funding Options for Improvements Project Goals approved at May 11, 2016 meeting. Funding possible for Goods Movement, Safety, Economic viability of area, access to HSR. Develop Southern Corridor to better define geometry and identify/assess impacts/cost. Pending clarity on first phase at US 101/SR 25 Interchange. Work with CTC to submit 152 Corridor funding. If/when applicable, assess FASTLANE Grant program. Pending identification of funding and/or direction forward. Review concept in January Develop more formal support from HSRA for use in discussions with State Legislators. Dependent on more clarity for 152 corridor. Consider next steps in early 2018 when Phase 1 is more clearly defined. Item closed (see item 2 above). 7. Assess Options for Delivering SR 152 Trade Corridor and SR 25 improvements Discussion held at July 19, 2016 MP meeting that full funding from public funds not likely. Presentation on P3 basics part of September 14, 2016 MP meeting. P3 Agreement likely best approach for SR 152 between US 101 and SR 156. Develop options for first phase of 101/25 interchange improvements consistent with MP goals. Redefine limits/expectations of SR 152 Trade Corridor and P3 potential project.

14 Mobility Partnership October 11, 2017

15 US 101/SR 25 Interchange Agenda Item 6 2

16 US 101/SR 25 Measure B (CEQA Cleared) Agenda Item 6 Total Project Cost Estimate ~ $200M 3

17 US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 Option A (New Bridge) Agenda Item 6 Total Project Cost Estimate ~ $65M 4

18 US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 Option B (Direct Ramp) Agenda Item 6 Total Project Cost Estimate ~ $50M 5

19 Ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor (CEQA Cleared and SR 152 Direct Connector) Agenda Item 6 Total Project Cost Estimate ~ $250M 6

20 Work Plan/Next Steps Agenda Item 8 7

21 Work Plan/Next Steps Agenda Item 8 SR 152 Alignment options Funding Governance Outreach efforts US 101/SR 25 Interchange First Phase development New actions per meeting 8

22 Questions 9