mobility partnership agendavtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/site_content/mp_0627… · 13....

MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Gilroy City Council Chambers

7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

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 February 7, 2018.

5. INFORMATION ITEM – Receive reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff.

6. INFORMATION ITEM – Update on US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1

7. ACTION ITEM – Overall Status/Work plan Update/Next Steps

8. ACTION ITEM – Future meeting schedule

9. ADJOURN

Mobility Partnership February 7, 2018

If you have any questions about the Mobility Partnership, please contact VTA Community

Outreach Department at (408) 321-7575, TTY (408) 321-2330, or e-mail

[email protected] UH.

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) 321-5680 or E-mail: [email protected] or

TTY (408) 321-2330. VTA’s Homepage is located on the web at: http://www.vta.org or visit

us on Facebook Uhttp://www.facebook.org/scvta U.

mailto:[email protected]

Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 6 February 7, 2018

MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER

The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Chairperson Muenzer in

the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Representing Status

Larry Carr Vice -Chairperson 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 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 AUGUST 16, 2017

On General Consensus, and there being no objection, the Mobility Partnership Regular

Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2017 were approved.

5. APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2017

On General Consensus, and there being no objection, the Mobility Partnership Regular

Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017 were approved.

6. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 4

deleon_re

Typewritten Text


Casey Emoto, VTA Deputy Director of Engineering and Program Delivery; Mary Gilbert,

Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director; and Chris

Metzger, Project Manager; provided updates on sales tax Measure B for Santa Clara County,

sales tax measure for San Benito County, SB 1 funding application for US 101/SR 25

Interchange Phase 1, STIP, Regional Measure 3 and high-speed rail.

Discussion:

1. Mr. Casey Emoto delivered an update on Santa Clara County’s sales tax Measure B. The

sales tax measure was passed on November 8, 2016 and tax collection started on April

2017. Currently, the tax measure is under litigation. VTA prevailed in the lower court,

but the plaintiff appealed the lower court’s decision in August 2017.

2. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on a proposed San Benito County sales tax measure for

the November 2018 elections. SBCOG is currently holding special meetings to explore a

possible 1% sales tax measure for 30 years.

3. Member Leroe-Muñoz asked on the amount of sales tax measure collected and currently

held in escrow. Mr. Emoto estimated at around $100M based on previous reports.

4. Mr. Emoto updated the members on the SB 1 funding application under the Trade

Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) for the US 101/SR 25 Interchange

Improvements - Phase 1 Project. VTA submitted the funding application in the amount of

$4.2M for the design phase of the project in January 2018. A Request for Proposal (RFP)

would be prepared by VTA for the design of the US 101/SR 25 Interchange

Improvements - Phase 1 Project.

5. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on San Benito County’s 2018 State Transportation

Improvement Program (STIP).

Mr. Emoto provided an update on Santa Clara’s 2018 State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP).

6. Mr. Emoto provided an update on Regional Measure 3.

7. Mr. Metzger provided updates on High Speed Rail (HSR). Draft environmental document

is scheduled to be out by end of 2018. Final environmental document is planned to be out

by end of 2019. The HSR 2018 Business Plan is planned to be out for review in March

2018.


7. PRESENTATION ON US 101/SR 25 INTERCHANGE – PHASE 1

Discussions:

Mr. Metzger provided a presentation on the 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).

1. Vice –Chairperson Carr inquired if Option A and Option B would follow the same project

schedule. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative.

2. Member Velazquez asked if Option B’s existing on- and off-ramps would stay. Mr.

Metzger said that existing ramps would stay and a new connector would be built.

Member Velasquez inquired on how long Option B’s two-lane direct connector design

feature (one southbound, one northbound) over a four-lane road could support area’s growth.

Mr. Metzger said further traffic analysis is needed. US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option B would

complement the planned SR 152 Trade Corridor project.

3. Chairperson Muenzer asked if the US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option B would be a carpool

lane. Mr. Metzger explained that lane could be open to all drivers, a carpool lane or a

managed lane possibly with tolling (express lane).

Chairperson Muenzer suggested if lane could be opened initially to all drivers then

eventually be considered as carpool lane. Mr. Metzger stated that all options would be

considered in future studies.

4. Chairperson Muenzer expressed concern for the Gavilan College commuters on the

proposed elimination of access from Castro Valley Road. Mr. Metzger explained that

rerouting of traffic would be assessed. The direct access from Castro Valley Road to/from

US 101 is an area that needs to be addressed.

5. Member De La Cruz suggested the staff to develop options that would be met with less

resistance from the Gavilan College commuters. Mr. Metzger stated that further studies

would be required to address the commuters’ interests and traffic impact on neighboring

communities.

6. Member Harney also expressed concern on the closure of a major access road such as

Castro Valley Road. Mr. Harney noted the growth and projected new homes in the southern

part of Gilroy. Alternative roads such as 10th Street would not be able to handle the traffic

with the elimination of the Castro Valley Road access.

Mr. Metzger said that a key part of the ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor Project is the Santa

Teresa Boulevard connection to SR 25. Inclusion of Santa Teresa Boulevard connection to

SR 25 in the Phase 1 Project could depend on the level of funding that is secured.


7.Chairperson Muenzer inquired on a design that would allow commuters to exit to Castro

Valley Road. Mr. Metzger stated that such a design could be considered as a short-term

solution.

8. Member De La Cruz inquired on available funds for the project. Mr. Emoto stated that

existing work is funded by the VTA’s and the State’s previous contributions of $5 million

each to fund corridor development work for the SR 152 Trade Corridor project that includes

the US 101/SR 25 area. VTA’s 2016 Measure B also has an allocation of $2 million. VTA

will look for additional funds to complete development work.

9. Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if there was a frontage road with a connection to Castro

Valley Road in the CEQA-cleared document. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative.

10. Vice-Chairperson Carr requested that an update on the project schedule be discussed at

the next meeting.

11. Member Velazquez inquired on the direct connector’s cost of four-lane over two-lane

road and suggested to consider long term solutions that would work with the SR 152 Trade

Corridor.

Member Harney suggested to consider traffic flows in City of Gilroy and encouraged staff to

follow up with City of Gilroy staff on projects funded by Measure B.

12. Member Leroe-Muñoz recommended that Gilroy City Council needs to determine

priorities on Measure B funded projects.

13. Mr. Gabe Gonzalez, City of Gilroy Administrator, discussed current and future

developments in the Santa Teresa Boulevard area.

14. Mr. Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief, informed the committee on the re-

evaluation of the environmental document based on the proposed project schedule.

15. Chairperson Muenzer asked if Phase 2 has already been identified. Mr. Emoto said that

future phases would be developed based on committee recommendations and funding

availability.

16. Member Velazquez expressed preference on Option B due to lower cost, better traffic

flow and consideration of future SR 152 corridor. Member Harney conveyed concerns on

Option B that might potentially delay future phases and not address needed interchange

improvements. Mr. Metzger stated that traffic analysis on both options would be incorporated

as part of the next phase of work and would be presented to the committee.

17. Chairperson Muenzer stated that the project should be developed within the footprint of

the existing CEQA-cleared document, address City of Gilroy’s traffic concerns, and consider

future developments along Santa Teresa Boulevard.


18. Vice-Chairperson Carr said that priorities should be: (1) rebuild the bridge as the key to

project being completed; and (2) connection to Santa Teresa Boulevard. Mr. Carr also

suggested that City of Gilroy, given the planned land developments in the southern parts of

the City, should be more involved in funding the Santa Teresa Boulevard connection.

Public Comment

Jerrod Coddington, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: (1) preference on

Option B; (2) both Option B and connection to Santa Teressa Boulevard could be built with

the cost of Option A.

19. Mr. Emoto advised that update on RFP for PA/ED phase would be provided at the next

meeting.

20. Member De La Cruz inquired if there is a secured $65 million funding for the project.

Mr. Emoto clarified that there is no secured $65 million funding for the project.

.

8. UPDATES ON SR 25 INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief, provided updates on SR 25 interim

improvements.

1. Member Velazquez inquired on the cost to temporarily fix the shoulder lane from Castro

Valley Road to US 101 which is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Saleh provided

a cost estimate of $1 million and funds could be requested through SHOPP program for FY

2020.

2. Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if a request could be made to CTC to issue a SHOPP FY

2018 amendment for the estimated cost of $1 million to fix the shoulder lane. Mr. Emoto

advised that funding options would be discussed with Caltrans.

Mr. Mercado suggested to contact the offices of Assemblywoman Anna Caballero and State

Senator Bill Monning to assist in CTC’s funding amendment request.

Member Leroe-Muñoz left the meeting at 11:11 a.m.

Public Comment

Interested Citizen made the following comments: (1) address the need to fix the US 101

shoulder lane; (2) preference on the flyover option and connection to Santa Teresa

Boulevard.

9. NEXT STEPS


Discussion:

Chris Metzger, Project Manager, discussed workplan updates, next steps and action items.

1. Members requested that next meetings be scheduled for May 9, 2018 (Wednesday) and

August 8 (Wednesday). Specific location and time to be determined.

11. ADJOURNMENT

On the order of Chairperson Muenzer, and there being no objection, the meeting was

adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca de Leon

VTA Highway Program

Memo on Agenda Item 5

Date: June 27, 2018

TO: Mobility Partnership

FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

Chief Engineering and Program Delivery Officer;

Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive

Director

SUBJECT: 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

• Mobility Partnership Update: meeting with City of Gilroy Staff and presentation to City

Council

• SB 1 Funding under Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) for US 101/SR 25

Interchange- Phase 1

• Other Funding

• High Speed Rail update


Date: June 27, 2018


FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager

SUBJECT: Update on US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1

INFORMATION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive update on US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential Phase 1 improvements.

I. Scope of Work

A. Environmental Clearance

1. Data Collection and Review

2. Traffic analysis for Option A (New Bridge) and Option B (Direct Ramp)

3. Geometric Development/Design Exceptions

4. Re-evaluation of Environmental Technical Studies

5. Re-evaluation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document

6. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document

7. Project Approval

B. Preliminary Engineering - Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)

1. Mapping

2. 35% PS&E

II. US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1 Considerations

III. Traffic Circulation

BACKGROUND:

See attached presentation.


Date: June 27, 2018


FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager

SUBJECT: 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.


Date: June 27, 2018


FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

Chief Engineering and Program Delivery Officer

SUBJECT: Establish schedule for future meetings

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve schedule of future meetings.

BACKGROUND:

Based on availability of MP members for this meeting, staff is recommending the following

future meeting dates for discussion and approval:

• Wednesday, September 12, 2018 – morning. Time and location TBD

(Replaces meeting previously scheduled for August 8, 2018)

• Wednesday, December 12, 2018 – morning. Time and location TBD

Mobility PartnershipJune 27, 2018

US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1

2

Agenda Item 6

3

US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement - Phase 1Preliminary Project Milestone Schedule

Agenda Item 6

Activity Start Finish

RFP Process May-2018 Dec-2018

Environmental Re-Validation & NEPA Clearance (2) Jan-2019 Jan-2020

Right-of-Way (3) Nov-2019 Jun-2021

Final Design - Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) (1) (2)

Jan-2019 Jul-2021

Complete PS&E Jul-2021

Construction (3) (4) Aug-2021 Dec-2023

Open to Traffic Dec-2023

Closeout Jan-2024 Dec-2024

Notes:

(1) Funding partially identified, schedule is tentative and subject to change.

(2) Concurrent activities

(3) Funding not identified, schedule is tentative and subject to change.

(4) Includes construction contract procurement period

202520242021 2022 20232018 2019 2020

Dependent on Funding

4

US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement - Phase 1Scope of Work

Agenda Item 6

ITEM Start FinishDuration

(Months)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Environmental Clearance

Data Collection and Review Jan-19 Feb-19 2

Traffic analysis for Jan-19 Apr-19 4

Option A (New Bridge)

and Option B (Direct Ramp)

Geometric Development/ Feb-19 Aug-19 6

Design Exceptions

Re-evaluation of Environmental Feb-19 Oct-19 9

Technical Studies

Re-evaluation of CEQA Apr-19 Dec-19 9

NEPA Apr-19 Dec-19 9

Preliminary Engineering

Mapping Feb-19 May-19 4

35% PS&E May-19 Jan-20 9

2019 2020

5

US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement - Phase 1 Considerations

Agenda Item 6

Option

(Construction Notes) Pluses for Traveling Public Challenges to Address

Option A – New Bridge

(Construct first phase of new US

101/SR 25 interchange that is

shifted slightly to the north of

existing location)

• Minimal learning curve for traveling public to use new

interchange.

• More clarity on who has right of way at ramp terminal

intersection with signals proposed to replace existing STOP sign

control resulting in improved operations and enhanced safety.

• Proposes to directly address existing documented operational

concerns for southbound US 101 to southbound SR 25 traffic

movement by clarifying ramp terminal intersection control and

increasing storage capacity of southbound US 101 to SR 25 off-

ramp and SR 25 bridge across US 101.

• Minimizes right-of-way take in this phase (access to The Garlic

Shoppe is maintained – would be affected with ultimate project).

• Permanent Santa Teresa Blvd connection can be provided.

• Addressing loss of existing access to

Castro Valley Rd and Gavilan College with

shift to full access control to improve

highway safety.

• Not providing free flow direction

connection between US 101 and SR 25.

• Minimal improvement to westbound SR

25 to northbound US 101 traffic

movement as improvement is focused on

southbound US 101 to eastbound SR 25

movement.

Option B – Direct Ramps

(Construct as first phase new direct

connector ramps between US 101

and SR 25 to the east; existing US

101/SR 25 interchange remains;

could add temporary connection to

Santa Teresa Blvd)

• Provides high-speed connection for US 101 to/from SR 25.

• New direct ramps would extend over UPRR crossing to provide a

free-flow crossing to eliminate one conflict point.

• Includes widening of US 101, potentially as far north as Monterey

Rd, increasing capacity in both directions.

• Provides opportunity for a tolling component to help pay for

future improvements to possibly speed up timeline.

• Better opportunity to keep Castro Valley Rd open.

• Greater ROW acquisition including The

Garlic Shoppe.

• Merging of new direct ramps with

existing SR 25.

• Implementation of temporary Santa

Teresa Blvd connection if this is needed.

6

US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement - Phase 1 Considerations

Both Options:

Agenda Item 6

• Construct a portion of the ultimate interchange with as little throwaway cost as

possible

• Fit within the ROW identified in the approved CEQA environmental document

• Have options to accommodate Santa Teresa Blvd connection to/from US 101/SR 25

interchange

• Have similar design/development schedules depending on complexity of relocating

or acquiring The Garlic Shoppe (in the case of Option B)

7

US 101/SR 25 IC Imp Phase 1 – Option A (New Bridge)

To Prunedale

GILROY

Total Project Cost Estimate~ $65M

Key Elements• Construct new bridge

• Two lane SB 101 off-ramp

• Improve ramps

• Signalize ramp intersections

• Eliminate access from/to

Castro Valley Road

Agenda Item 6

8

US 101/SR 25 IC Imp Phase 1 – Option B (Direct Ramp)

To Prunedale

Direct Ramp

Key Elements• Interchange remains

• Shift 101 southbound to west

• Eliminate access from Castro

Valley Road

• Direct connection median US

101 to SR 25 – over UPRR

Total Project Cost Estimate~ $50M

Agenda Item 6

9

Traffic Circulation MapUS 101/SR 25 IC Imp Phase 1 – Option A (New Bridge) – with Santa Teresa Blvd Access

Agenda Item 6

10

Traffic Circulation MapUS 101/SR 25 IC Imp Phase 1 – Option A (New Bridge) – without Santa Teresa Blvd Access

Agenda Item 6

11

Traffic Circulation MapUS 101/SR 25 IC Imp Phase 1 – Option A (New Bridge) – Auxiliary Lane with Access Opening at Mesa Road

Agenda Item 6

Work Plan Status

12

Agenda Item 7

13

Work Plan Status – June 27, 2018 Agenda Item 7

Original Work Plan Element

Status Next Action

1. Review Alignment Concepts for SR 152

Two Alternative Corridors defined: “PSR corridor” (north alignment) and “Southern corridor” per July 19, 2016 meeting. Work on hold pending funding. VTA RFP will include task(s) to further develop southern alignment in coordination with SR 25 work.

• Finalize RFP.

• Select consultant for conceptual work.

• Develop “Southern Corridor” - better define geometry and identify/assess impacts/cost. Coordinate with first phase at US 101/SR 25 Interchange.

2. Assess Potential Near Term Funding Opportunities

Potential Funding for US 101/SR 25 I/C from Santa Clara County Measure B Sales Tax Measure November 2016. CTC approval of SB 1 fund allocation on 5/16/2018 for US 101/SR 25 IC. Considering application to FASTLANE Grant program. San Benito County Future Sales Tax. Still working to re-allocate remaining SR 152/156 earmark dollars to SR 152 Trade Corridor.

• Secure SB 1 Funds.

• Consider FASTLANE, BUILD or other Grant options.

• Consider other SB 1 programs for next phases.

3. Workshop on Institutional/Governance Topics

Received report(s) for MP meetings conducted on the following 2016 dates: March 9, May 11, July 19, September 14, and November 9; 2017 dates: August 16, October 11; 2018 date: February 2.

• Review concept later in 2018.

4. Coordinate with High Speed Rail Received report at May 11, 2016 meeting. Regular updates provided. HSR supportive of improving SR 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.

• Develop more formal support from HSRA for use in discussions with State Legislators. Dependent on more clarity for SR 152 corridor.

5. Establish and implement Outreach Plan

Draft Plan presented at September 14, 2016. Report on initial outreach at November 9, 2016 MP meeting.

• Consider next steps in late 2018 when Phase 1 is more clearly defined.

6. 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.

• Assess options for first phase of US 101/SR 25 interchange improvements; select preferred; update CEQA and perform NEPA

• Redefine limits/expectations of SR 152 Trade Corridor and potential P3 project. Coordinate with SR 25 work.

7. Define Phase 1 Project and Secure Funding

SR 152 Trade Corridor consultant contract expired on 12/31/2017. RFP for new consultant being developed. Funding sources have specific requirements associated therewith (SB 1; Measure B; STATE; EARMARK).

Prepare RFP package for PA/ED Phase. [Q3,2018]

8. Lobby State and Federal Legislators on project importance

Leveraging SB 1 application to prepare talking piece for MP members to use when discussing with State and Federal officials.

• Finalize 1 to 2-page project sheet highlighting purpose, needs, and benefits.

mobility partnership agendavtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/site_content/mp_0627… · 13....

Documents