Citizens Advisory Panel - smcta.com

Citizens Advisory Panel George M Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center

6800 Mowry Ave

Newark, CA 94560‐4954

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

7:00‐8:30 PM

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes: October 27, 2010

4. Public Comments

5. Action Items

a. Review of the PAC Agenda of April 22, 2011

6. Member Comments and Requests

7. Future Meetings

8. Adjourn

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Date: DRC Citizen Advisory Panel October 27, 2010 Location: Time: San Mateo County Transit District Offices Meeting Start: 7:05 P.M. 4th Floor Dining Room, Meeting Adjourn: 9:15 P.M. San Carlos, CA Minutes Prepared By: Issue Date: Terri O’Connor April 8, 2011

Attendees (sign-in sheet attached)

CAP Members Jim Bigelow. Redwood City Mike Dubinsky, Fremont Barry Ferrier, Union City Thaddeus Norman, Menlo Park Eric Hentschke, Newark, Tim Pitsker, Fremont – Vice Chair Nancy Radcliffe, Redwood City Arthur Ringham, Atherton Susan Robinson, Menlo Park (Chair) Mark Gonzales, Newark

Project Staff Marian Lee, Joint Powers Board Donna Chung, Joint Powers Board Bill Hurrell, Wilbur Smith Associates Terri O’Connor, Wilbur Smith Associates Members of the Public None

Item No. Discussion

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Summary Minutes of April 28, 2010 Meeting.

a. Mike Dubinsky recommended capturing a comment made by M. Lee at the April meeting. M. Lee stated that in order for the DBR project to advance, regional support/champions are necessary.

b. J. Bigelow motioned to approve with addition. B. Ferrier seconded.

c. Minutes passed.

4. Public Comments (None)

5. Review of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) agenda of November 5, 2010.

PAC meeting will be held at 1PM on Friday November 5th at the San Mateo County Transit District Offices in the Bacciocco Auditorium (2nd floor).

Project Manager Comments:

The consultant team has been working on reviewing and revising service plan alternatives resulting higher ridership forecasts and developing a funding strategy that will be acceptable to FTA.

M. Lee stated that the draft document is scheduled for release in the summer/fall of 2011 and approximately a year following, completion of the environmental document. M. Lee highlighted

1 of 3


that finalizing the environmental document is subject to having a realistic funding plan approved by the FTA.

M. Lee stated the while we are moving forward with long-term rail planning, DBROC is pursuing shorter-term bus planning which may include enhanced bus service along the Dumbarton corridor. DBROC is also getting ready to issue a RFP for its bus services. This will let us know if there are other operators in the market that can operate the bus services in a more cost effective way.

Reports of the Citizen Advisory Panel

Mark Gonzales stated that he would make the CAP report to the PAC.

Technical Study Update

W. Hurrell provided a summary of the technical report and discussed the following: Changed ABAG population and job forecasts and impacts will impact ridership from

6,000 to 8,600 daily riders. This is due to ABAG land use and job adjustments, increase in bridge tolls and the change in the horizon year from 2030 to 2035.

Refined rail and bus alternatives from the original total of (8 rail and 4 bus) and associated ridership forecasts and cost effectiveness assessment. The most promising rail alternatives were based on ridership cost effectiveness, TOD potential and operation feasibility were determined to be the Original project, the Union City Rail Shuttle, and the combined Original Project + Union City Rail Shuttle.

TOD opportunities at DRC station locations and associated potential ridership above existing ABAG 2035 projections. Ridership for existing city plans and policies (+1,500-3,500), ridership for a moderate growth (+4,500-9,000), ridership for an aggressive growth projection (+8,000-16,000)

Rail technology scan, including EMU, DMU, Commuter Rail. DMU, EMU and commuter rail were most suitable for the DRC based on speed, cost/mile and FRA compliance. The cost per mile of EMU rail is more than DMU and commuter rail.

Funding strategy framed by a 2 tiered approach for meeting FTA guidelines to address a funding gap of approximately $400M+. For the draft environmental document, a conceptual funding plan is needed. For the final environmental document, a realistic funding plan is needed. Key funding sources for additional funding is the upcoming Alameda County Sales Tax Measure and future bridge tolls.

Final staff recommendation: o Proceed with planning, design and environmental studies, including preparation

of EIR/EIS. Sufficient budget remains for this effort. o Secure additional funding sources and prepare full funding plan. o Complete 15% design.

Discussion:

ABAG Forecasts

The CAP raised questions about the nature of the changing ABAG forecasts. W. Hurrell discussed how the ABAG forecasts changed from previous forecasts resulting in increased transbay travel and ridership for the DBR project.

Land Use Analysis

The CAP raised questions about the land use analysis and local policies. M. Lee and W. Hurrell indicated that the exercise was to indicate only how land use densities around the DBR stations could help maximize the DRC project ridership. It was highlighted that this was not done to tell the cities what to do. It was done to inform local stakeholders about how they can support the DRC project with local land use policies.

2 of 3


3 of 3

Freight Traffic

There was significant discussion about using the existing Mission Creek Bridge versus a new bridge to be constructed over Alameda Creek to divert freight traffic. T. Pisker asked if construction of a new bridge can be dropped from the EIS/EIR. Concerns were raised about the potential environmental impacts of the new bridge. M. Lee and W. Hurrell recommended that the EIS/EIR examine both alignment options and at the end of the environmental process, we would have sufficient information to choose a preferred option.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

There was discussion about a comprehensive economic evaluation of alternatives. There was concern that the alternatives that move forward are the best use of taxpayer monies. The concern for the cost effectiveness of Segment G was also mentioned. M. Lee stated that an economic analysis can be added on top of the EIS, but that it is not always part of the environmental process.

Motions

J. Bigelow motioned to support the staff recommendation. B. Ferrier seconded.

Motion 1: Proceed with staff recommendation. In the environmental document:

Note concerns about building a new rail bridge for the purposes of diverting freight traffic and

Include a thorough cost-effective analysis of all of the alternatives.

Passed: 7 in favor, 3 against

A second motion was brought forward by T. Pitsker

Motion 2: Proceed with staff recommendation. In the environmental document:

Add a design option that uses the existing bridge for the purposes of diverting freight traffic and

Include a thorough cost-effective analysis of all of the alternatives.

Passed: All in favor (10)

6. Member Comments and Member Requests

A. Ringham requested the East Bay members show up to the PAC and speak as members of the public.

7. Time and Date of Next Meetings

Future meetings will be quarterly the week before a PAC meeting.

8. Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm Attachments: Sign-in sheet

Policy Advisory Committee

April 22, 2011

Union City Council Chambers

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Chairperson Comments

a. Altamont Corridor AA Letter (attached)

4. Election of Vice Chairperson (Action Item)

5. Project Manager Comments

6. Public Comment (For items not on the agenda)

7. Consent Calendar

a. Minutes of November 5, 2010 Meeting

8. Report of the Citizens Advisory Panel

9. Information Items

a. Status of the DRC DEIS/DEIR

b. Funding for Corridor

c. Interim Bus update/DBROC

10. Correspondence

11. Requests from Members

12. Next Meeting – Purpose and Date

13. Adjourn

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Date: DRC Policy Advisory Committee November 5, 2010

Location: Time: San Mateo County Transit District Offices Meeting Start: 1:12 pm Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor Meeting Adjourn: 3:02 pm 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

Minutes Prepared By: Issue Date: Terri O’Connor April 7, 2011

Attendance:

Policy Committee Members Mayor Mark Green, ACTIA (Chair) Commissioner Sue Lempert, MTC (V. Chair) Council Member Heyward Robinson, SMCTA Council Member, Anu Natajaran, ACTIA Council Member, Richard Larsen, VTA Council Member, Ana Apodaca, ACTIA Council Member, Margaret Abe Koga, VTA Council Member, John Seybert, SMCTA Council Member, Carlos Romero, SMCTA

Project Staff Marian Lee, Joint Powers Board Howard Goode, Joint Powers Board Sylvia Cox, Joint Powers Board Hilda Lafebre, Joint Powers Board Donna Chung, Joint Powers Board William Hurrell, Wilbur Smith Associates Terri O’Connor, Wilbur Smith Associates Nancy Whelan, Nancy Whelan Associates Alexis Lynch, DC&E

Item No. Discussion

1. Call to Order

Chair M. Green called the meeting to order.

2. Roll Call

Sufficient members were in attendance to achieve quorum.

3. Chairperson Comments

The PAC Chair and Vice-Chair provided commentary about current funding and electoral issues that may have an impact on the DRC project:

M. Green provided commentary about recent election results including the passage of vehicle license fee increases in several local counties.

S. Lempert commented on an upcoming MTC meeting regarding RM2 projects which will provide an opportunity for a presentation and update on the DRC project.

M. Green discussed the upcoming 2012 Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan, indicating that a sales tax measure should be expected for the Nov 2012 ballot. He expected a nine figure number for the DRC project.

4. Project Manager Comments

M. Lee welcomed the new board members Margaret Abe-Koga and John Seybert and indicated that Heyward Robinson would be departing from the board due to the results of the recent city council elections in Menlo Park.

1 of 4


5. Public Comments (For items not on the agenda)

Steve Van Pelt, resident of Menlo Park, inquired about a new siding, asking if it was related to the DRC project. Van Pelt also made brief comments about late night train horns and the Marsh Road connection. Staff said that they would follow up.

David Schonbrunn of TRANSDEF spoke in support of DRC. He stated that TRANSDEF filed suit to stop the moving of funds from the project. He indicated he is supportive of using HSR development capital and would like to be on the project notice list.

6. Consent Calendar

The May 7, 2010 meeting minutes were approved.

7. Report of the Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP)

M. Gonzales presented the motions discussed and approved by the CAP.

8. Action Items

Technical Study Findings and Next Steps

M. Lee outlined ongoing project challenges and work conducted based on PAC direction. She provided the regional context for the DRC project and highlighted the need for the project to be more competitive for funding in the region.

W. Hurrell provided an update on the technical analysis and highlighted the following:

The changed forecast will impact ridership from 6,000 to 8,600 daily riders. This is due to ABAG land use and job adjustments, increase in bridge tolls and the change in the horizon year from 2030 to 2035.

A land use analysis was conducted that included ABAG’s 2035 projection, actual development plans and more aggressive development potential around station areas. The purpose was to determine what development was possible and what level of development would be needed to support DRC. It was estimated that actual plans and policies could boost ridership by 1,500-3,000 riders per day, ridership for a moderate growth could boost daily ridership (+4,500-9,000), and ridership for an aggressive growth projection could boost daily ridership (+ 8,000-16,000).

The most promising rail alternatives based on ridership cost effectiveness, TOD potential and operation feasibility were determined to be the “Original Project”, the “Union City Rail Shuttle”, and the combined “Original Project + Union City Rail Shuttle”.

The most promising bus alternative based on ridership, cost effectiveness and TOD potential was considered to be the “Enhanced TSM + Shuttle”.

N. Whelan presented the funding status and opportunities for the project:

DRC currently has $345M in committed funds.

Other anticipated funds include $91M in repayment from MTC.

$44M from VTA is no longer in their 2 year budget and 10 year SRTP.

$39M ITIP funding is at risk because of the state budget situation.

There is a $400M funding gap. Key future funding sources include: Alameda County Measure B renewal; bridge tolls; MTC’s transit sustainability project; federal sources and public private partnerships.

2 of 4


M. Lee presented, as a staff recommendation, the most promising rail and bus alternatives identified in the presentation to be included and analyzed in the EIS/EIR. She also stated that the remaining budget of $2M will be sufficient to complete the environmental process and 15% engineering design. The DEIS/R will be completed January 2011-July 2011 and the funding plan and FEIS/R will be completed July 2012.

The following were PAC member key discussion items:

Committee members discussed the land use analysis indicating that cities were only going to develop what they were comfortable with. M. Lee indicated that there would be follow-up meetings with planning directors to get a better handle on baseline planning goals and projections. M. Green understood that some cities were already past the ABAG 2035 assumptions and making more aggressive development decisions. H. Robinson indicated that Menlo Park is unlikely to go beyond ABAG 2035.

R. Larsen indicated his preference for EMU due to emissions impact and potential to integrate with electrified Caltrain. W. Hurrell indicated that EMU, DMU and existing commuter rail technology would all work with electrified Caltrain. However, due to freight row in the east bay, developing an electrified DRC project would be a challenge. H. Robinson voiced concerns about FRA compliance for EMU/DMU.

M. Green stated that it would be essential to get the congressional delegation for all three counties behind this project. The business community’s support is also needed in the legislative process.

M. Green - Based on the ridership forecast, the South Bay would gain substantial benefit from the DRC project. He encouraged South Bay committee members to financially support the project.

S. Lempert - The east west link needs to be built as there are many employees that live in the east bay and are commuting to the peninsula. Transit is needed to meet this demand because the housing in the Peninsula and South Bay isn’t sufficient. R. Larsen stated that we need to look at the housing and transportation issue regionally rather than piecemeal.

The following were public comments:

J. Bigelow encouraged the PAC to approve the staff recommendation because of the annual loss in $5.5M of RM2 operating funds. He believes there will be support from the business community and that South County/VTA would be a beneficiary so they should contribute.

D. Schonbrunn commented that the DRC project should consider FRA compliant hybrid diesel electric trains. He is supportive of DRC because it will relieve Transbay congestion. He also stated that in the environmental analysis, staff should analyze the trips not taken resulting from the project.

P. Schecker of Cargill is working on a plan in Newark to provide 2,500 housing units and is not sure if it was included in the land use analysis. He questioned the bus ridership numbers.

M. Gonzales of the CAP stated that the project is based on maximizing throughput across the bridge and rail is required to make that happen.

S. Van Pelt made a statement in support of requesting RM2 DRC operating funds for interim bus.

3 of 4


4 of 4

Motion

M. Green motioned to support the staff recommendation relative to the EIS/EIR alternatives and next steps. H. Robinson seconded. Motion was approved unanimously.

8. Information Items

Interim Bus Service Update (DBROC)

C. LaVigne (AC Transit), representing the Dumbarton Bridge Rail Operations Consortium (DBROC), provided an update on a proposal to temporarily use RM2 DRC operation money for existing and expanded Dumbarton express bus service. He stated that between now and summer 2011, an RFP will be issued, an operator selected for express bus service, and an interim bus proposal finalized. He noted that DBROC, DRC PAC and MTC Commission actions could be anticipated for fall 2011.

The following were key discussions on this item:

C. Romero inquired about coordination with Stanford University shuttles. C. LaVigne indicated that the shuttles and the “U” Line will be getting integrated into the interim bus plan.

H. Robinson suggested that the Sanford Hospital be considered as a potential partner due to the many trips generated.

9. Correspondence

No correspondence was received.

10. Requests from Members

H. Robinson made parting comments to the PAC. He stated his support to complete the EIS/EIR. He believes that rail will work in the long-term, but that bus will work sooner. The bottlenecks are in the approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge. He believes the project can become a model for phasing and creatively dealing with budget challenges.

11. Next Meeting Date

The next meeting was tentatively scheduled to be held in February 2011.

12. Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 3:02 pm

Memorandum

Date: April 22, 2011

To: Policy Advisory Committee

From: Bill Hurrell, WSA

Hilda Lafebre, JPB

Re: Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) EIS/EIR Update

_________________________________________________

This memo highlights activities that have occurred over the last quarter focused on

advancing the project environmental process, next steps and updated project schedule.

Staff will make a presentation at the PAC meeting.

Work Activities Performed

Administrative

The project team has been procured to prepare the EIS/EIR and conduct stakeholder and

regulatory coordination. The project team is comprised of:

Wilbur Smith Associates ‐ Alternatives Definition

Whelan and Associates – Funding Plan

HNTB Corporation ‐ Engineering

The Louis Berger Group – Environmental Planning

Stakeholder Coordination

Project coordination meetings have occurred with the FTA, MTC, ACTC and High

Speed Rail. These meetings are on‐going for the purpose of advancing the project

EIS/EIR, regional rail planning coordination and funding plan development.

Technical and Regulatory Environmental Review

With the introduction of new alternatives, passing of time since the preparation of envi‐

ronmental technical studies and new/changed environmental regulations/guidance, sig‐

nificant work is required to complete the administrative DEIS/EIR.

April 22, 2011

Page 2

New/changed regulations/guidance include: Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership

in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance; AB32 and SB375 and regional

plans; Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Air

Resources Board (ARB) guidance; US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) endangered

species list and National Marine Fishery Services (NMFS) requirements; California

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list & TMDL requirements; CWA 402 NPDES, Rivers

and Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10; 2010 Census Redistricting Files; 2009 America Com‐

munity Survey; 2009 ABAG projections; 2009 ABAG Housing Report; and local land use

and development plans.

Technical studies that need to be updated include: Transportation/Traffic Analysis; Air

Quality; Biological Resources; Water Quality; Noise/Vibration; Cultural Resources; Land

Use and Planning; Population and Housing; and Cumulative Impact.

Alternatives Definition

Work has been initiated on finalizing the definition of the bus and rail alternatives. New

issues to be analyzed and included in the project definition are: final station location on

the west end of the bridge; HSR and streetcar considerations at Redwood City; and addi‐

tional infrastructure to support bi‐directional service and increased train frequencies.

Next Steps

Update technical studies

Conduct operations and service plan analysis

Finalize rail and bus alternatives definition

Develop public outreach plan

Schedule

The schedule has been revised to reflect additional time needed to comply with new en‐

vironmental guidelines, outdated analysis and changed alternatives. The revised

EIS/EIR schedule is as follows:

Administrative draft to FTA (Winter 2011)

DEIS/EIR to public (Spring 2012)

FEIS/EIR (Fall 2012)

Memorandum



From: Marian Lee, JPB

Re: Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Project Submittal

_________________________________________________

In response to MTC’s RTP Call for Projects, the San Mateo County Transportation

Authority (SMCTA) is working with the Alameda County Transportation Commission

(ACTC) to submit an application for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) project. ACTC

is taking the lead in submitting the project application to MTC and will be taking the

application to the Alameda CTC Commission for approval in May. Inclusion of the

DRC project in the RTP is particularly important to ACTC given their current efforts to

include the DRC project in ACTC’s Countywide Transportation Plan update and the

development of a new sales tax Transportation Expenditure Plan.

In the MTC RTP application, the DRC project is being defined in two phases to provide

both short‐term and long‐term transportation improvements in the corridor.

Phase I includes bus enhancements to existing services that will improve travel times

and frequency with a relatively low investment of capital and operating funds and the

securing of the Oakland Subdivision right‐of‐way (between Union City and Shinn)

critical for Dumbarton rail service. The right‐of‐way investment is included in Phase I

because it also supports the Capitol Corridor improvement plan scheduled to be imple‐

mented in the short‐term.

Phase II includes building the rail project and operating commuter rail service.

It is important to know that we do not yet know how the DRC project will be defined in

the RTP. This is the first time that the RTP decision‐making will be informed by other

regional planning efforts, including the Transportation Sustainability Plan (TSP) and

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which are not complete and in the process of

being developed.

Memorandum



From: Paul Lee, SamTrans

Re: Update on Dumbarton Express Bus Service RFP

_________________________________________________

Background

The agreement with AC Transit to operate the Dumbarton Express Bus Service expired

in 2010. AC Transit, with agreement extensions, is continuing to operate Dumbarton

bus services while a solicitation for a new operator is being processed by the Dumbarton

Bridge Route Operations Committee (DBROC).

DBROC requested SamTrans to prepare a solicitation document to seek a qualified ser‐

vice provider through competitive bid procurement. A draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

has been completed.

Scope of Services

Five‐year base term with up to five one‐year option terms to extend;

Operate current Dumbarton bus services with the option for augmented services;

Provide maintenance, management, courteous service, supervisory staff, and a

facility suitable for bus repair and parking; and

Comply with all Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.

RFP Schedule

Proposals due: April 2011

Contractor selection: May 2011

Board award: June 2011

Contract execution: October 2011

The RFP is being reviewed by DBROC members. DBROC members continue to deliber‐

ate the timing of contract execution as it affects labor negotiations and timing of bus op‐

erator route bids. The schedule is subject to change contingent on resolution of

DBROC’s current deliberations.

Citizens Advisory Panel - smcta.com

Documents

Transcript of Citizens Advisory Panel - smcta.com