Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04111989 - S.4 S.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on April 11, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Schroder, Torlakson ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: MTC Resolution 1876 Amendment As recommended by Supervisor Tom Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Resolution 1876 , relative to BART service in the South Bay, is REFERRED to the Transportation Committee (Supervisors Schroder and Torlakson) . I hereby certify that this Is a true crid correct copy of an action taken rind entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: A-.1L4;.4 /!. ZAS}' PHIL B CHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 13Y .D"Wb cc: Transportation Committee Steve Goetz, CDD County Administrator s.y • MEMORANDUM To: MTC. Negotiating Committee From: R iridon for Amending Resolution 1876 Re: Contra Costa Modifications March 3111989 recommended by Steve Weir Commissioner Steve Weir recommended via Larry Dahms the following modifications to the attached document: (Steve's changes are underlined.) 1) Under the section, entitled "Introduction of proposed Amendments to MTC Resolution No. 1876," Recommendation #2 should read: Reaffirm the Commission priority given to seeking new start funds for the BART extension to the vicinity of SFO based on the recognition that these grants trigger San Mateo and,State cash grants that are essential to project development in five of the region's nine counties. In any year that the SFO extension requires new start funds, it is proposed that SFO be fully funded for that year before the next new start priority project of:Tasman is to be funded. In this event, SCCTD would be expected to advance any additional local funds to ensure uninterrupted development of the Tasman project Those advanced funds and any remaining federal funding deficiency for either project become a call on future year earmark requests. After consideration by; the Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Joint Powers Board, Steve's modifications to Recommendation #2 were accepted unanimously. 2) On the page entitled, "A Unified Bay Area Strategy for UMTA Section 3 Grants, " Steve recommended that the 5th bullet read as follows: Consistent with the recommendations of the Fremont-South Bay Policy Committee, the Fremont-South Bay AA/DEIS will focus on extensions on the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system to Milpitas and Mountain View/Sunny-vale. Permission will be sought to conduct an alternatives analysis for the BART extension from Warm Spring to downtown San Jose after completion of the Fremont-South Bay AA/DEIS._ Before MTC approves'authorization to proceed with this Warm Springs to San Tose alternatives analysis, an a Bement must be apj2roved between Santa Clara County Transit and BART for:�a capital contribution to BART. The Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Joint Powers Board voted unanimously to change Steve's modification as follows: Before MTC approves:authorization to proceed with federal construction funding for this Warm Springs to San Jose alternative, a financial agreement must be reached between. Santa Clara County Transit Diss-ic` -^ 7.`.''.77. �4t rgpNiP. B0AR1D OF SUPERVISORS SANT,k CLARA CO >t_ NTTY TRANSIT DISTRICT COlJNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER / EAST WING 20E LOFOREN 70 WEST HEDQING ST./ SAN JOSE,CALirORNIA Q5110/ .ape! 299 23 3 BVPCpVi$pn secoNc visTRe* CNAIRPERSON,-RANSIT tISTR-C7 March 21, 1989 Dear MTC Commissioners: In an effort to clarify our attached request to amend MTC Resolution 1876, we would like to review the following related chronology. The process unfolded very quickly and regrettably several members of the Commission were not adequately advised. Since 1982 the Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Board has been studying the Tasman crossover line in conjunction with a BART extension from Fremont to San Jose. When UMTA refused to allow the BART alternative to be analyzed, that Board elevated the Tasman project to a first priority position. In late February of this year MTC, BART and our County Transit staff realized that .I. an available two-year window existed in the cycle of federal funding to the Bay region, It was then recommended that since the Tasman project was ready for Preliminary Engineering we should',urge Congressional earmarking of $4 million in FY 1990, with construction to occur during the 1392-93 "window" identified by staff. It is our stated intent that in no way should this project jeopardize currently approved MTC projects. The Colma Extension is our first priority as it is the region's, and the Colma to SFO project will not be ready for preliminary engineering until Tasman will have been completed. Our attached letter to the Congressional delegation clearly outlines the Colma project. We urgently ask that Resolution 1876 be amended, as it is only through effective and swift action that we can take advantage of this unique opportunity for building a critically needed new transit corridor. MTC approval is being sought in advance of the April 17, 1989 hearings of the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation as requested by our South Bay Legislative Delegation We are grateful for your consideration. ?ar�dojf y��* greon ara County Transit District Supervisors MEMORANDUM To: Metropolitan:Transportation Commission From: Susanne Wilson BART Board Members Ron Gonzales SamTrans Board Members Zoe Lofgren Rod Diridon Dianne McKenna James Beall Re: Proposed New Starts Plan Amendment pate: March 20, 1989 for the Tasman Corridor Line Re omme,nded Action: It is respectfully requested that, at its workshop session on March 22, 1989, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission schedule special meetings of the Executive Committee, possibly the Work Program Committee and, then, the gull Commission in the first week of April* to consider the following two action items: 1 . Amend MTC Resolution 1876 to allow the Tasman Corridor Line in Santa Clara County to begin earmarking in the current year for preliminary engineering and conclude with a final construction gm iant earmarked in the fourth (1993) year out, (see page 6 of attachment 1 for specifics). 2. Approve the following elements for an April 17, 1989 Bay Arca Congressional delegation letter to the Douse Appropriations Committee. Subcommittee on Transportation. First, the Colma Project should be identified as our number-one priority for the earmarking of°30 million dollars in construction funds for expenditure during the coming year. Second, four million dollars would be earmarked for preliminary engineering of the Tasman Corridor Line for expenditure in the 1994 fiscal year. Third, as approved previously by MTC, UMTA would be required, by earmark language, to authorize a Final Alternatives Analysis that would Include a BART alternative in the Scott Creck to San Jose Corridor. i°ne MTQ staff suggests the following meeting times: The Executive Committee would meet at 1:30 pm on the afternoon of April 5 at the MetroCenter in Oakland. The full Commission would meet at1:30 pm on the afternoon of April 6th in the Sunnyvale City Hail following a bus tour of the Tasman Corridor as requested by several Commissioners. BACKGROUND: When MTC Resolution 1876 was adopted in 1988, the South Bay MTC Commissioners and federal legislative delegation supported that Important consensus action with the understanding that projects which become qualified for federal funding during the time frame of Resolution 1876 could be amended into that Resolution using previously established MTC procedures. This amendment procedure was discussed at the Executive Committee, Work Program Committee and during the debates before the full Commission and does conforTn with current MTC policy. The UMTA-authorized Fremont/South Bay Corridor study began in 1982 and has proceeded well but became stymied in early 1988 when UMTA refused to allow a BART alternative to be analyzed in the Fremont to San Jose corridor. After a year of futile attempts to persuade UMTA to modify its Position, the Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Joint Powers Board, after earlier preliminary approvals, finally proceeded at its February 9, 1989 meeting to divide the study into three _portions. • Thebe first and most immediate phase of the original Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study would be that portion which would continue to an early conclusion as the originally approved Alternatives Analysis for the South Bay subregion. That Alternatives Analysis, which is now called the 'Tasman Corridor Line," is virtually complete and will be ready for Preliminary Engineering in mid-1990, with construction beginning by mid- 1992 and concluding by the end of 1994. * The smo-nd would be conducted by BART and would be a state-level Environmental Impact Report on the portion between Fremont and Scott Creek at the Santa Clara County line near Milpitas. That study has been approved by BART and is in process now. a The third portion was to be a 11M UMTA-approved Alternatives Analysis on the Scott Creek to San Jose Corridor which has been held up because of UMTA inaction. The Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Joint Powers Board and the full MTC both took actions to approve the request that our legislative delegation earmark the requirement for UMTA to authorize a Final Alternatives Analysis which would include a BART alternative in that Corridor. The earmarking of that study requirement could not take effect until October of 1989 and would not be required to be released by UWA until October of 1990. Therefore, we realized that the Scott Creek to San Jose Alternatives Analysis would become a second phase and probably not conclude until after the funding of the SFO BART extension in the 1996 to 1998 period at the earliest. As a result of the Fremont/South Bay Corridor Study Joint Powers Board February 9 action, a meeting was held at MTC on Thursday, February 16 with BART, MTC and Santa Clara County Transit District staff along with several MTC members. At that meeting discussion began regarding the need for the Tasman Corridor Line to be considered for an interim amendment of Resolution 1876. That amendment was expected to occur in 1990 to accommodate a 1992 and 1993 construction grant earmarking schedule. After e)dcnsive discussion it was concluded by MTC and BART staff that a window of two years existed in 1992 and 1993 between the conclusion of the Cvolma BART extension and the earliest probable date in 1994 or1995 when the SFO extensions would be qualified for federal earmarking. Concurrently, Congressman Norman Mineta's staff asked the County to provide him a list of potential transportation funding requirements through the turn of the century but the request had not been recognized as having a specific deadline. He called personally to ask where this information was on February 27 and the Santa Clara Cotinty Transit District Board of Supervisors responded that they would have an emergency meeting on February 28 and at the same time asked District staff to prepare that information. The resulting staff memo dated " March" (Attachment 1) describes the Tasman Corridor Light Rail Line on pages 2, 3 and 6 with the financial requirements on the latter page. The first time the members of the Santa Clara County Transit District Board of Supervisors knew of the need for early funding (1990 and 1991) proceeding the construction year window for the project was at the February 28 special Board meeting. After careful consideration the Board decided to submit the package as prepared by stalL subordinating the four million dollar 1990 preliminary engineering earmarking reQuest to the thirty million dollar-Colma Extension request as _MTC to accompiisi an earheJ- originally expected. Therefore, the March 1 letter was sent to each of the South Bay Congressmen, at Congressman Mineta's request, and was also sent to MTC Commissioners and staff by the Transit Agency staff. The proposed use of the 1992 and 1993 construction year "window" in the March I letter to our Congressional delegation was based on the February 15, 1989 memorandum from the MTC Executive Director. That memorandum is included as Attachment 3 to this memorandum and the window is described in Alternative Number 4 on the last page. Copies of the letter to Congressman Mineta and the South Bay Congressional delegation, with the attachments, were then hand distributed to and discussed in detail with a delegation of BART Directors attending a meeting with Santa Clara County Transit Board members during the second week of March. In addition, copies were hand delivered to MTC members and other interested individuals who could be contacted prior to and during the trip to the March 12, APTA Legislative Conference in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, several MTC Commissioners did not receive the letter and were therefore surprised by the request. Please realize that every effort was made after the early funding needs were identified on February 28 to share the information with both affected MTC and BART personnel although some had access to most of the information through associated meetings in February. After discussing the current situation with many of the Commissioners during the APTA Legislative Conference and others by telephone, we hope that all will realize the recommended course of action will protect our opportunity to maximize federal funding to the region. The technical staffs who proposed the action have done so in a manner that would cause no delay to other federally qualified projects since none, except those mentioned in this memo, are nearing the completion of their required federal studies. Finally, and most importantly, the proposed course will protect the MTC process and would allow the continuation of the consensus that was established last year both within MTC and among our region's Congressional delegation. That consensus will allow us to proceed to complete all of our projects as more funding becomes available at the Federal level. Lack of a consensus will doom our projects no matter how much federal funding becomes available. 31{ -4T1�• I`�._....---" el•_ './{1L ^\1 Proiect Sponrnr Santa Clara County Transit District URSUwA Descrit) ion A 10.1 to 12.7 mile extension of the FR EMONT Guadalupe Corridor LRT system east to Milpitas/San dose (1 -680) and west to Mountain View or Sunnyvale. Warm Estimate Cost ($ 1987) San sus Francisca barrio To Sunnyvale; Approximately $280 million (including engineering design) . s"u.prrAs To Mountain View: Adds approximately $90 million (including engineering design) . "" '' Project Qbjectiv-,z, WrN 1G Yi£W ���fiP }b51A 9 Serve East Bay commuters who hold ula c jobs in Santa Clara County by �' � upgrading feeder bus service from J� BART to the Guadalupe Corridor LRT i SVfrACLARA and to major employment concentrations in Santa Clara County; this will relieve I-880 _ •�``+� and Route 237 in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties; ° ; �? 8A uO SEO- micas • Connecting the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system to CalTrain on the Peninsula; this will relieve Route 101 on the Peninsula and Route 237; s Providing improved mobility within Santa Clara County by extending the existing LRT system east to Milpitas and west to Lockheed and Mountain View or Sunnyvale; this will relieve Routes 101 , 237 and County expressways. ProiecStaa-tya • Approved as one of Santa Clara County' s first priority rail corridors in Transportation 2000 final Plan, May 1987. o UMTA-approved Alternatives Analysis underway since September 1986. Study is being rescoped to focus on LRT extensions and consider BART extensions into Santa Clara County in a subsequent Alternatives Analysis. MR/blg (1810p/62) S.EY, Y �Ti�� t • I -a'/ •fit. y i _ .. _ _ yi.. -:\a .. . ln.n.,,,! :• .'1i s'viw # : iV! it0 Introduction of Proposed Amendmonts to RTC Resolution No. 1876 In order to reaffirm the projectriorities embodied in Resolution No. 1876 and add a project �amerging from the MTC/BART/SCCTD Fremont/South Bay alternatives analysis, the fallowing explanation and attachments are provided. As background note. 1 . Included within Resolution No. 1876 is the anticipation of amendments to reflect project planning progress. 2. Currently there are three alternative analyses alive in the region as follows: 2.1 The BART Colma station alternative analysis is complete, awaiting UMTA's final approval and ready to support immediate UMTA Section .3 New Start funding. 2.2 The Fremont-South Say alternative analysis is being rescoped to provide the policy Committee the opportunity to advance a Santa Clara light rail transit extension in tho Tasman Corridor for federal funding. 2.3 UMTA has Just ggivon conditional approval to proceding with the Peninsula Corridor Alternative Analysis whish must be completed to make the proposed BART extension from Colina to the vicinity of SFO eligible for new start funding. (Note UMTA's policy limiting approval of the conduct of alternatives analyses to one per urbanized area kt a time.) S. Basad on estimated progression of these analyses, a capital rant application schedule is anticipated which would provide for ending Tasman improvements in addition to Colma Station improvements before major amounts are required to fund the remainder of the SFO extension. That fund schedule is shown in the attached materials. 4. Nonetheless, the total amount of new start funds to be available nationally or the portion that can be secured for this region cannot be predicted with certainty. Thus, it is necessary to anticipate MTC's fallback in the event of a funding short fall at some time in the future. 5. State transportation legislation may offer new opportunities for adding projects that are not eligible for federal new start grants to the program sometime soon. Recommendations: 1 . Add tho Tasman proact to the rail program to include a request for a $4 million earmark this year. .;tuutlye Committee, April %, 989 Page Two 2. Reaffirm the Commission priority given to seeking now start funds for the BART extension to the vicinity of SFO based on the .recognition that these grants trigger San Mateo and State cash grants that are essential to project development in five of the re ion's nine counties. in any year that the SFC extension requires nows art funds, it is proposed that SFO be fully funded before the next nes+ start priority project of Tasman is to be funded. Any remaining funding deficiency for either project becomes a call on future year earmark requests, 3. That in anticipation of additional State funding for transit guideways, the Commission should conduct a more comprehensive amendment to the rail extension program beginning in the fall of 1989. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of Resolution 1876, a Tasman fact shoot and revisions which reflect the background andrecommendations recited above. Attachments; 1 . Tasman extension project fact sheet, Z. Amendments to Resolution No. 1876 i Revised Table 1 3. Revised Unified Bay Area Study for Rail Earmarks and Grants 4. Existing Resolution No. 1876 Date: 3/24/88 W.I. '. 1201 .01 .01 W.A. : 0282r Referred By: Executive Revised: 06/22/68-C ABSTRACT Resolution No. 1876, Revised This resolution sets forth MTC's New Rail Transit Starts and Extension Program. This resolution supercedes Resolution No. 1967. This resolution was revised on June 22, 1988, to clarify the extent of BART rail planning in the Pittsburg/Antioch and Pleasanton/Livermore Corridors. This resolution was revised on April 6, 1884, to provide federal funding for the Tasman Corridor Light Rail Extension. Proposed Amendment to Resolution No 18.26 E. 1) the Tasman Corridor Light Rail Extension of the Santa Clara Light Rail System extends from the vicinity of Hostetter Road and Route 680 in San Jose to Sunnyvale or Mountain View. 2) The estimated cost in 1987 dollars is $280 million. The cost estimate includes a single line extension to either Mountain View or Sunnyvale. If m second line is proposed, it +rill be totally funded with local revenues. 3) Federal funding for the Tasman Corridor Light Rail Extension is proposed to be $140 million (1957 dollars) . 4) The Commission seeks earmarking of the HART-SFO Extension and the Tasman Corridor Light Rail Extension as follows: (1987 dollars in millions) (escalated (1) dollars in millions) Tasman Tasman BART-SFO iExtension BART-SFO Extension 1989 S 8.3 (2) $ O $ 8.3 (2) $ O 1990 30.0 4.0 30.0 4.0 1991 30.0 11 .0 50.0 (3) 11 .0 1992 12.9 62.3 16.5 60.0 1993 24.8 62.5 33.2 80.0 1994 26.2 0 36.9 0 1995 50.4 0 89.2 0 1996 61 .6 0 95.6 0 1997 65.4 0 106.5 0 1998 65.4 0 111 .9 0 Total 4-42 a- $1 0 $61 0 40 $iW 7-5.0 Notes: (1) Escalation rate at 5%. (2) Section 9 Funds. (3) Includes escalation for both 1990 and 1991 earmarks. 5) The first priority for federal funding and for the earmarkinq of UMTA Section 3 New Start funding is the BART-SFO Extension and the second priority is the Tasman Corridor light Rail Extension. 6) The BART-SFO Extension cash flow requirement in any year is to be fully funded prior to the Tasman Extension if the total amount scheduled above for the two projects cannot be secured. Any remaining funding deficiency for either project becomes a call on future year earmark requests. SEN11' 6Y-.MTC Atputunent A R WUW No. 1876 Pape 6 of 6 TABLE 1 Amended 4113t09 UTC RAI!_EXTEMN MWRAM PRDPOSED PfiWWT FUNOff+K#0 (1"7 DOLLARS IN MILLKWS) CialTrain BART BART Alsmods M. NO Clara TOTAL % F.Id. SFO Wart Pitt.Mmn 6(20 Tasman(12(13 Nemeda iJ2 cent(10 170 170 7.24 DART (8 34 68 92 3.92 &M,New 112 Derst(10 ISO 16$ 7.20 B.M. Eft 1/1 Dint(1(1 148 74 125 343 (7 14.82 M Eultt.112 Cent(10 ,Sian Flit, 173 (o 179 7,37 Sarre Cts I. Santa Clara (LIQM FWD 140 (14 140 5.48 USL Bridge Tolls(8 4 16 24 1.02 New Brtdge Toes (a tib 94 150 8.39 CDntra Coate 112 oent(10 178 178 7.58 SUBTOTAL 342 148 351 483 140 1444 $tote (8 74 126 700 9.52 Federal 104 442 140 621 29.43 Balance 13 13 0.33 TOTAL 461 (5 $40 423 602 280 2348 100.00 1)TM chert demonstrates 1*a commfroM can be 9) Should Ills Fremont-youth Say Altslarattvea made to a Jeune Uft pMrstmm for these flue Analysts findnge not demwwnte AM roll extenslin To tt+e is Its4o doolsiclns leadbi ty mdlmdbn of dl Wn fundi now ear- a m r#rMs to bee eetimalee,MTC wit took m&*od for the Warm"s ex**n would moo mpnt barn=nparsble U dng axam bepafmitbd. 2) 6ART•QubNn, BART-Warm dprtnpe, 10) Local atm I& 3) From toll Inosow on Me bay bddpe 11) BART r` d(including C4h&6la9on)it the number 4) Pftle at oftr comes, ohs mgiortil prfisir*for federal now start funds, 6) Subject b Envolmn venial impact statement 12) The Tamen flpllt nu(orrtdor It the number faro fthdrpt. prbrlty for federal new start fundi. 6) Subject to apneMment between Sen Fran 4 o,snot 13) The a*estlmair lhdudu a ale 0 Ilrte Mare and San tiAateo mitt openDlee. extllydbn to kkuntainvtew or Sunnyvale, M 7) W*at b ar oomsm betwaten BART and S&maTr* two pmol are edopw,the now VIII be 0) The find dvtalon bemwaen Narrseda and Gohtra wy funded whh local revenues. Cotta Gourley probe assumed to be me"on the 14) The local ears may be reduced by We beds of tt it ntWM Poputadon;i.e.,62.6%b sowenue aloftwe io&M Clara County as ria Novels pr+ajM end 37.2%14 true Conga defined In pendng leplataaoia or irttlattwt. SENT 6y: A UNIFIED SAY AREA STRATEGY FOR UMTA SECTION 3 GRANTS Adopted December lit, 1966 Reviled JlknUAry 25, 191110 Weed Apr(16. 1989 • The federal earmarking strategy will be limited to Now Starts/Extenslons projects. • We will soak earmarking of $30 million for the ColMO BAIT station as the first=station for the rail extension to the vicinity of the Son Francisco Airport.' Wo will seek earmarking of $4 million for the Tasman corridor extension of the SCCTO light rail system.* The proposed FY 1989 Section 3 rail and bus mod program to $92 million; CalTraln Station Acquisition S 3,652,500 CWTrain San Jose Multimodal 4,8000000 MUNI 40 LRV Purchase 43,169,05+0 MUNI Metro Turnback 10,072,600 MUNI Trolley Conversion (Balboa) %922,5CU BART Suburban Mobility Initiatives 1 g-491. 8Q Total $ 92,106,800 • Consistent with the recommendations of the Fremont-South Say Policy Committee, the Fremont-South Say AAJDFIS will focus on extensions on the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system to Milpitas and Mountain View/Sunnyvale, Permission will be sought to conduct an alternatives analysis for the BART extension from Warm Spring to downtown Sart Jose after completion of the Freemont-South Say AA/DEIS. i If the Commission amends Resolution No. 1875 to advocate federal participation in the funding of CalTrain right-of-way acquisition, the capital grant strategy will be reassessed to determine how to incorporate that change. 'r"9w star earmarks In subsequent years will be In accordance with the provisions of MTC Resolution 1876 as amended April 6, 1989.