Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03291988 - S.6 J Tc: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �y'�t FROM: Conn L Robert I . Schroder, Chair �a Board of Supervisors DATE* COl,rty March 29 , 1988 SUBJECT: Consider MTCI's Resolution #1876 on New Rail Starts and Extensions SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: In order to continue progress on funding and construction of a regional program of rail extensions, the County takes the following actions: 1. Endorses the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Resolution No. 1876 , New Rail Transit Starts and Extensions Program (Attachment 1 ) . 2. Strongly urges the BART and.• Samtrans Boards of Directors tc develop the pending BART/Samtrans agreement on the San Francisco Airport extension consistent with MTC Resolution No. 1876 . 3 . Urges all other parties and counties affected by this agreement to adopt resolution in support of MTC' s Resolution and to commit to take all actions necessary to make the program a. reality. For its part, the County will continue to support efforts to secure the proposed project funding, as outlined in Table 1 of MTC Resolution No. 1876, including: a) A Contra Costa sales tax measure for the November 1988 election. b) Bridge toll legislation that includes funds for rail extensions. c) Commitment of State guideway funds for the regional rail program. d) Commitment of BART funds for the North Concord/West Pittsburg extension. RIS:BAN:dsp dpl2:boRegRP.t03 VV CONTIHUED..ON-.ATTACHMENT- VAV-\ YESSIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY AOMINI-STRA'1"OR r RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER ... -.--SIGNATURE(S): C p ACTION OF BOARD ON I f a `� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. �/ CC: ATTESTEDJ-X -. ._._� 9 /�� O County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD C Community Development Dept. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATC M382/7-83 BY .DEPOT t 1 In addition, the Chair should be authorized to sign a letter transmitting this Order to MTC, the California Transportation Commission, BART, the Bay Area Counties , the Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Commission, and members of the Congressional and State Legislative- delegations . 5. This Board Order supersedes the Working Position Paper adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 2 , 1988 . ^REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND: The. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors initiated the Metropolitan Transportation Commission' s (MTC) involvement in resolving the regional rail program crisis. MTC, the County and its cities have worked diligently to create an equitable, balanced program for the Bay Area which is financially feasible and satisfies the concerns of the congressional and state legislative delegations . This program is defined in the attached Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution No. 1876, New Rail Transit Starts and Extensions Program, which the Commission adopted March 24 , 1988 . In order for the program- to be implemented, a number of agreements must be reached between and among transit operators in various Bay Area counties. Primary among these and of utmost importance to Contra Costa County is the agreement between BART and Samtrans - regarding the buy-in payment for a BART extension to the San Francisco Airport. This agreement must be consistent with the MTC resolution to assure Contra Costa taxpayers that the entire rail program will be implemented. Contra Costa County, for its part, will continue to support efforts to secure funding for the regional program. These efforts include support for appropriate- bridge toll legislation that allocates funds for rail extension programs, as outlined in the Board' s February 9 action on this matter. In addition, the Board in cooperation with the cities and the Transportation Partnership Commission will con- tinue to work to create a sales tax measure to place before the voters in November. Also on March 24, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) voted unanimously to indicate their intent to commit $200 million of state guideway funds toward components of the regional rail program. The County supports this action, and will continue to work with CTC to secure this- commitment. Similarly, the County will work with BART to secure the $34 million in BART funds for North Concord/West Pittsburg extension outlined in the MTC Resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is minimal direct financial impact on the County. Direct costs would include staff and consultant support of Bridge Toll Bill efforts. As noted in previous Board Order, there are staff costs associated with the developmen-t--,of a one . half_ cent--sales tax program which is now--a=-key element -_af.- the- success of the regional rail -- program. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: - This regional program is key to the County' s effort to extend rail to North Concord and West Pittsburg. Without regional cooperation and support of all available funding mechanisms, achievement of Bay Area rail extensions will remain an elusive goal. RIS:BAN:dsp dpl2 :boRegRP.t03 ATTACHMENT I Date: 3/24/88 W.I. : 1201 .01 .01 W.A. : 0282r Referred By: Executive ABSTRACT Resolution No. 1876 This resolution, sets forth MTC`s New Rail Transit Starts and Extension Program. This resolution supercedes Resolution •No. 1367. Date: 3/24/88 W.I. : 1201 .01 .01 W.A. : 0282r Referred By: Executive Re: New Rail Transit Starts and Extensions. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1876 ' WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code § 66500 et ee . ; and WHEREAS, MTC adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 1984 which set forth a new rail transit starts and extension program for the region; and WHEREAS, significant progress has been made in implementing Resolution No. 1367; and WHEREAS, after recent extensive review, MTC' s new rail transit starts and extension program needs to be updated to reflect such progress; and WHEREAS, MTC' s objective is to continue the development of an integrated regional rail transit system that: 1 ) links major urban centers; 2)_ extends into suburban corridors consistent with desired land -use; and - 3) integrates with... the regional highway-system; and WHEREAS, local , state, and federal discretionary funds will continue to be required to finance a program of new rail transit starts and extensions; and WHEREAS, the scope and cost of candidate projects must be defined and approved according to a well-defined planning process which usually includes federally-defined Alternatives Analysis and/or Environmental Impact Statements; and WHEREAS, MTC recognizes that during the time these planning projects are being conducted, important agreements will continue to be developed regarding station locations, cost-sharing, and other important factors; and Resolution No. 1876 Page two WHEREAS, in implementing this program, MTC will sponsor a continuing process. of policy and program refinement according to criteria to be developed for the Commission by its Work Program and Plan Revision Committee, including but not be limited to determining that: 1 ) each project is consistent with the long-range objectives of the regional rail system; 2) each project has satisfied environmental process (AA, EIS or EIR, as appropriate); 3) each project meets UMTA standards for federal dollars when seeking a federal grant; 4) each project has substantial local financial support; and 5) each project has regional consensus to proceed; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that MTC amends and adopts its new rail starts and extensions program as set forth in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and, be it further RESOLVED, that MTC will refer to the provisions of this resolution as the basis for project review and approval of funding applications; and, be it further RESOLVED, that MTC assumes responsibility for program and project advocacy - of its new rails starts- and extensions program-when seeking discretionary - state and federal grants; and, be it further_ RESOLVED, that MTC will periodically review and update -this resolution to. account for completion of planning efforts , development of local consensus, and changes in funding potential ; and, be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution supercedes Resolution No. 1367._ METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Doris Kahn, Chair The above resolution was entered into by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in Oakland, California, on March 24, 1988. Date: 3/24/88 W.I. : 1201 .01 .01 W.A. : 0282r Referred By: Executive Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 1 of 6 NEW RAIL TRANSIT STARTS AND EXTENSIONS PROGRAM A. Projects Underway or with MTC Approved Grant Estimated Capital Cost Project Millions) Guadalupe Light Rail Transit $ 380 San Francisco Muni J-Line 18 San Francisco Muni-Metro Turnaround 60 CalTrain Peninsula Commute Service San Jose Terminal relocation 46 B. Acquisition of Rights-of-Way MTC will support acquisition of rights-of-way necessary to implement the regional rail system including: Existing Southern Pacific Right-of-Way for CalTrain Peninsula service BART extensions Northern Western Pacific Railway in Marin and Sonoma Counties Other abandoned railroad rights-of-way with potential for future transportation use C. Projects Proposed for Planning Development The objective of the planning process is to define the project scope, financial capacity, initial segments, local agreements, and regional consensus on priority for projects to compete for discretionary regional , state, and federal funds. A financial capacity analysis is underway by MTC with UMTA support which will assist in defining a range of projects within the region' s ability to finance. Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 2 of 6 MTC will support local efforts and the allocation of UMTA Section 9 planning funds as appropriate to project sponsors for the further development of the following projects which are not in any priority order: Estimated Capital Cost Project ($ Millions) BART Extension to West Pittsburg including a N.orth Concord Station $425 BART Extension, Fremont to Warm springs including an Irvington Station 370 BART Extension, Bayfair to Dublin including a Castro Valley Station 232 Oakland Airport Connector 101 San Francisco Airport Connector 150 CalTrai.n. Peninsula Commute Service extension into downtown San Francisco to a location at or near Transbay Terminal 451 CalTrain Gilroy Extension 50 Guadalupe Corridor extensions including Milpitas/Cropley, Sunnyvale/Mountain View, and Vasona including- interconnection with-CalTrain 445 BART Extension in San Mateo County, Daly City to San Francisco Airport Corridor 590 Muni Waterfront 25 Muni Metro to the 4th and Townsend (approved 1-280 transfer project) 14 Marin/Sonoma rail projects 172 BART Extension, Warm springs to Milpitas 240 BART Extension, Milpitas to San Jose 560 Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 3 of 6 D. Understanding Regarding San Mateo Buy-In. CalTrain and BART Projects 1) Pending agreement between BART counties and San Mateo County on a buy-in formula based on local capital effort: a. San Mateo contribution is expected to be: for BART East Bay Extensions $200 million for BART San Francisco Airport Extension, 25% 148 million for CalTrain Extension in San Francisco 243 million b. The application of this contribution together with other proposed funding has the potential of financing rail extensions as shown in Table I to this attachment. While the estimates from each source of funds may have to be adjusted as subsequent decisions are made, the pending BART-SamTrans agreement is interpreted by MTC as supporting a regional , multi-party commitment to the projects identified in Table 1 . 2) Significant up-front dollar amount from San Mateo County to the current three BART counties: a. Pursuant to the pending agreement, expected to be concluded within 45 days, San Mateo would be expected to pay $50 million to BART at the time of UMTA grant approval and $50 million beginning with construction of the Colma Station. b. The balance of the funds would be paid to BART at approprJ..ate milestones associated with the extension to the airport. 3) Agreement on programs grams for extensions within three BART counties along with the BART Extension to San Francisco Airport: MTC supports commitment to a multiple extension program, as defined by Table 1 which guarantees the construction of additional stations on an equitable basis in the affected counties. 4) Separate EIS for CalTrain: a. The EIS shall be sponsored by the existing Joint Policy Board. b. An alternate sponsor could be SamTrans with participation from other counties. 5) Continue listing CalTrain in MTC New Rail Starts which shall stand or fall on its own merits as identified through the EIS process: a. This Attachment A includes the CalTrain Extension project. b. This resolution provides for completion of the environmental process prior to seeking or earmarking federal funding except as provided for in paragraph E of this Attachment. Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 4 of 6 .6) Pursue Alternative Analysis to facilitate SamTrans/UMTA/State-financed BART/SFO Extension: a. MTC will be the lead agency for the AA as in the existing . Fremont-South Bay AA. b. SamTrans and- BART will participate with MTC in the AA Board of Control . c. Final approval of AA will be through the .Work Program and Plan Revision Committee and Commission. d. The parties anticipate seeking maximum federal participation in this project. 7) Guarantee a-capforthe CalTrain extension to be no more than $109 million from the federal government: a. The..EIS will define the project costs. b. The cap on federal funds will be no more than $109 million.* 8) State funds for the CalTrain: a. MTC will support state funding for the existing Southern Pacific right-of-way: b. MTC, will support existing CalTrain upgrade through its capital priorities process.* c. MTC will support continued state operating assistance until a specified milestone in the CalTrain upgrade. d. MTC will not support an application of state funds for CalTrain extension. 9) Regional support for BART extensions in the East Bay: MTC intends to allocate bridge tolls and secure state and federal grants as outlined in Table 1 . CalTrain has 10 projects with an estimated cost of $117 million in MTC' s current TIP to be funded by UMTA Section 9 and 3 funds together with state and local matching funds. The $109 million from 7b would be added to that program to establish an overall limit of $226 million. Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 5 of 6 E. Further Commission Action 1 ) Earmarking of federal funds for any projects listed on Table 1 of this resolution after the publication of a draft EIS but before the final certification shall not be pursued without approval of MTC. 2) Amendments to existing State legislation, including but not limited to SB 878 (Statutes 1986, Chapter 301 , beginning at Public Utilities Code Section 131000 et seq.) , shall be pursued by the Commission to assure local funding for the projects subject to this resolution. Attachment A Resolution No. 1876 Page 6 of 6 TABLE 1 MTC Proposed Project Funding Associated with the Pending BART/SamTrans Agreement- 0 (in $ millions unless otherwise noted) CalTrain BART BART Alameda Co. Ext. SFO West Pitt. Measure B {2,10 Total % Alameda 1/2¢ 170 170 8.2 BART 34 (9 58 (9 92 4.4 S.M. New 1/2¢ 169 169 8.2 S.M. Exist. 1/2¢ 148 74 {9 126 t9 348 C8 16.8 S.M. Exist. 1/2¢ (6 San Francisco 173 t6 173 8.4 Santa Clara Existing Bridge Tolls 9 « 15 « 24 1 .2 150 �3 7.3 New Bridge Tolls . 56 (9 94 (9 Contra Costa 178 (7 178 8.6 SUBTOTAL 342 148 351 463 1 ,304 63.1 State 74 t9 126 (9 200 9.7 Federal 109 442 551 26.6 Balance 13 (4 13 1 .0 TOTAL 451 (5 590 425 602 2,068 100 1) This chart demonstrates thata commitment can be made to a-feasible funding program for these five rail extensions. To the-.extent future decisions cause changes to these estimates, MTC will seek replacement from comparable funding sources. 2) BART—Dublin, BART—Warm Springs. 3) From toll increase on bay bridges. 4) Private or other sources. 5) Subject to EIS findings. 6) Subject to agreement between San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo transit agencies. 7) Balance of funding required to finance the full BART West Pittsburg project should Contra Costa County choose to make it a part of a county sales tax measure. 8) Subject to agreement between BART and SamTrans. 9) The fund division between Alameda and Contra Costa County projects assumed to be made on the basis of their relative population; i .e. , 62.8% to the Alameda projects and 37.2% to the Contra Costa projects. 10) Should the Fremont—South Bay Alternatives Analysis findings not demonstrate project feasibility, redirection of certain funds now earmarked for the Warm Springs extension would be permitted.