C/CAGClry/CouNry AssocrÄTrox or Gov¡,RNMENTS

or Sñ,t MATEO Counry

AlhertonoBelmontcBrísbanecBurlingamecColmaoDalyCitycEaslPaloAltocFosterCity.HaïMoonBaycHillsboroughoMenloParkMillbraeoPacífcø.PorlolaYalley.p¿¿.oodCityoSonS*nocSanCarlosoSanMaleooSanMateoCounty.SouthsanFrancíscoolloodsíde

AGENDACongestion Management & Environmental Ouality (CMEQ) Committee

Date: Monday, October 27 ,2008 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.Place: SanMateo CityHall

330 V/est 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CaliforniaConference Room C (across from Council Chambers)

1.

2.

J.

4.

5.

6.

7.

PLEASE CALL SANDY WONG (599-1409) rF yOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.

Public Comment On Items Not On The Agenda Presentations are

limited to 3 mins

Minutes of July 28,2008 meeting. Action Pages I - 2(O'Connell)

Information

úrformation(Springer)

Information(Hoang)

Information(V/ong)

Action(Higaki)

Information(Wong)

Information(O'Connell)

Action(O'Connell)

Oral

Pages 3 - 10

Pages 7l - 23

OralPresentation

Pages 24 - 26

OralPresentation

3:00 p.m.10 mins.

3:10 p.m.5 mins.

3:15 p.m.15 mins.

3:30 p.m.30 mins.

4:00 p.m.15 mins

4:15 p.m.10 mins

4:25 p.m.l0 mins

8.

9.

Update on Measure A Strategic Plan

Presentation on CO2 San Mateo County-including Energy Strategy and PG&E LocalGovernment Partnership.

Presentation of the Peninsula Gateway 2020Corridor Study - Final Report and Action Plan.

Update on the San Mateo County Smart CorridorProject.

Recommendation of projects to be funded by theMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)under the Lifeline Transportation Program for atotal amount of 51,925,1.27.

Executive Director Report

Member comments and announcements.

Adjoumment and establishment of next meetingdate (Nov 17,2008).

(Lee-Skowronek) Presentation

4:35 p.m.5 mins

4:40 p.m.10 mins.

4:50 p.m.10.

555 County Center, 5th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHoN¡: 650.599.1406 F¡x: 650.361.8227

C/CAGCrrv/Couxry AssocrATIoN oF GoyERNMENTS

or S¡,x M¿.rBo Cou¡¡ry

Atherton.BelmontoBrisbtneoBurlíngamecColmaoDalyCityoEaslPaloAlto.FosterCitycl{oyroonBayo¡1¡¡¡t6oroughoMenloParkMillbraeoPacilìca.PorlolaValleyol¡¿¿y,oodCityoSnnB*no.SanCarlosoSanMateo.SanMateoCountycSouthSanFronciscocl(oodside

NOTE: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Committee.Actions recommended by staff are subject to change by the Committee.

NOTE: Persons with disabilitíes h'ho requíre auxílíary aíds or services ín attendíng øndpstticipating ín this meetíng should contact Nancy Blair øl 650 599-1406, Jìveworking days príor to the meeting date.

Other enclosures/Correspondence - None

555 County Center, 5'h Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 Puon¡: 650.599. I 406 F ¡x: 650.361.8227

CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS COMMITTEE ON CONGESTIONMANAGEMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CMEQ)

MINUTESMEETING OF JULY 28,2008

At 3:03 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Chair O'Connell in Conference Room C at the CityHall of San Mateo.

Members Attending: Judith Christensen, Linda Koelling, Arthur Lloyd, Karyl Matsumoto,BarbaraPierce, Vice Chair Sepi Richardson, Lennie Roberts, Onnolee Trapp, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, DanielQuigg, and Steve Dworetsþ.

Staff/Guests Attending: Richard Napier, Sandy'Wong, Tom Madalena, Jean Higaki, (C/CAG StafÐ,Pat Giorni (Burlingame resident).

1. Public comment on items not on the agenda.

Pat Giorni, a Burlingame resident, advocated for support for more bicycle carrying capacity onCalTrain in its Bicycle Master Plan. Members requested Richard Napier, Executive Director ofC/CAG, to contact CalTrain and convey the support for more bike carrying capacity.

Sandy Wong introduced Jean Higaki, a new C/CAG staff who came with extensive backgroundin Federal funding process and project management.

Chair O'Connell introduced and welcome new member Steve Dworetsky to the CMEQcommittee.

2. Minutes of May 19,2008 meeting.

Member Pierce noted that the minutes omitted to list her attendance of the May 19th meeting.

Motion: To approve the Mínutes of the May 19, 2008 meetíng, us corrected. Motion wasapproved unanimously.

3. Draft San Mateo County Energy Strategy (Information item).

Richard Napier provided apresentation on the Executive Summary of the Draft San Mateo CountyEnergy Strategy report. CMEQ members had the following comments:* Biotech companies are on board with the energy conservation objective.* AB 811 allows cities/county to give loans to low income families for solar installation.* The report did not include a specific target for energy conservation.x The document format is easy to read. As time goes on, the goals stated in the document will bemodified as a living document.x Energy use is projected to go up. 'We must make people understand the importance of cutting downon energy usage.* Create a website to show best practices.* Linking transportation and land use is missing. A suggestion was made to add land use to thedocument.

4. Report on C/CAG and PG&E Local Government Partnership (San Mateo County Energy\ilatch) (information item).

Richard Napier reported on a $3.5 million grant from PG&E for business, conìmunities, and residentialenergy conservation outreach and improvement. It's a partnership program and will also fund a countystaff position. The program will likely be in place by January next year.

5. Review and recommend approval of the funding recommendation for the provision ofCongest Relief Program shuttle services for a total cost of $738,803.

Tom Madalena presented the recommendation on funding for the Congestion Relief Program shuttleservices for fiscal year 2008109. CMEQ members requested to look at actual riderships for theseshuttles at a future meeting.

Motíon: To recommend øpproval of the fundíng recommendøtion for the provision ofCongestíon Relief Program shuttle services for a totøl cost of 8738,803. Quigg/Keolling,øpproved, unønim ou sly.

6. Receive the performance report on the Hydrogen Shuttle (information).

Richard Napier provided an update on Hydrogen Shuttle. In terms of cost, it is not as competitive as

traditional shuttles, but it reduced 4000 tons of carbon dioxide. The shuttle operation has been underbudget due to better mileage consumption. It operates in the morning only from East Palo Alto to thePalo Alto train station. Reliability is less than regular gas vehicle, but it's up and running more than90% of the time which is considered good. It met its intended program goals. Member Matsumotowould like to know the cost per mile to operate.

7. Proposed feasibility study on carpool lanes along US 101.

In 1999, there was a study on US 101 for carpool lanes and auxiliary lanes. Findings in that studyindicated it would be difficult to convert an existing mixed-flow lane to a carpool lane. Richard Napierstated that his recent observation: south of

.Whipple, US 101 has 3 mixed-flow lanes plus one carpool

lane. But north of Whipple, it has 4 mixed-flow lanes. Mr. Napier asked CMEQ members if it wouldmake sense to partner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to study the feasibilityof converting one of the four existing mixed-flow lanes into a carpool lane between Whipple and SanFrancisco County line. CMEQ members' general reaction was that it would be worthwhile lookinginto in terms of the number of vehicles and carpool users. Will having a carpool lane encouragedrivers to carpool? Carpooling will conserve energy.

8. Executive Director Report.

Rich Napier reported that 48348 clear the Assembly, will go to Senate for confirmation, and then tothe Govemor. He mentioned that Assembly member Ruskin has done a wonderful job to championthis bill.

Member comments and announcements.None.

Adjournment and establishment of next meeting date.

The meeting was adjourned at- 4:30 p.m. The next meeting was scheduled for August 25,2008.

9.

10.

C/CAGAGEI{DA REPORTDate:

To:

From:

Subject:

October 27,2008

congestion Management & Environmental euality committee (cMEe)

Kim Springer

co2 San Mateo county - Energy Strategy and pG&E Local Govemment pafnership

@or further information, contact Kim Springer 650-599-1412)

RECOMMENDATION

That CMEQ receives an advisory on a new Program called CO2 San Mateo County. This item is forinformation only. No action is required.

FISCAL IMPACT

No Fiscal Impact.

SOURCE OF FUNDS

Funding for this program is by grant funds from the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distnct(BAAQMD) and matching funding between C/CAG and San Mateo CountyDepartment of public Works.

BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION

On November 9,2007, the San Mateo County Department of Public Works submitted a grant proposal tothe BAAQMD entitled Co2 San Mateo County. The Grant progam is called the Climate protection GrantProgram and the proposal submitted was under the Capacity Building Grant option.

The submittal was based on the need heard from cities in San Mateo County that they were beingoverwhelmedby organizations and workshops and various other efforts to move on ólimate action, theconcern that they lacked the staff to move climate protection initiatives forward in their cities and the needfor additional staff at the County level to organize a countywide energy efficiency and climate actioninitiative.

The submittal was also written to support the next steps outlined in the Energy Strategy Document.

The grant was approved in June and San Mateo County staff worked quickly to hire a ResourceConservation Specialist II to support the efforts of the cities.

The Grant scope of work contains a number of tasks pertinent to the cities:o Hire a Countywrde "Energy Officer" (Resource Conservation Specialist II)' Complete the San Mateo County Energy Strategy and get the cities to adopt ito Recruit the Cities to participate in CO2 San Mateo County. Implement Eàergy Reduction programso Recruit Volunteer staff to support the cities. Complete Greenhouse Gas Inventories

. Design Tracking Tools

CO2 San Mateo County encompasses a number of initiatives all under one umbrella, including the EnergyStrategy and the new PG&E Local Government Partnership, San Mateo County Energy Watch.

Desired Outcomes

. The cities in the County work collaboratively with each other and the utilities

. community and govemment greenhouse gas inventories completed

. Energry efficiency and water conservation efforts moved forward

Current Status

o The Energy Strategy document is being edited with comments from the cities. City needs for volunteers is being evaluated

' The San Mateo County Energy Watch partnership contract work is nearing completion

Next Steps

Support C/CAG effort to get every city in the County to adopt the San Mateo County Energy Strategy and:o Designate one elected official and one staff person to the projecto commit to doing their part to meet the goals for the county as a wholeo Release source data necessary to track the cities ptogress towards those goals

ATTACHMENT

. CO2 San Mateo County PowerPoint Presentation

COz San lvlateo CountyCtimate Action Countywide

m ¡iilft?liåi:*rrr"*- Funded in part by a grant from the Bay Area Air euality Management District

Cíties &

(Ð Extended Partnership - Utilities<t Shared Expertise<Ð Staff Resources and Savings{t Coordination# FinanciaI Support

OrganizatîonsWorktng Together

Assistonce - Tools & ResoLtrces

cC2San

MateoCou nty

BAAQMD Capacity Building GrantC/CAG - GHG Inventory Funding

San Mateo Energy Watch (PG&E LGP)

JVSVN/SSV/ICLEI - Climate Task Force

SSMC - Reporting

San Mateo County Energy Strategy

Bay Area Ai r QualítylrÁonagement District

{Ð Capacity Buitding Grant¡r Awarded to County of San Mateo pubtic Works

$ Supports:n GHG lnventory effort¡¡ Streamtines resources for citiess GHG Tracking System¡r Votunteer Staff Poo[

¡+ Workshops

¡: Adoption of the Energy Strategy and its goats

C / CAG GHG lnventory Fundíng

+> 5273,000 (5t ¡,000 per city)¡r For GHG lnventory or Climate Action ptan

Other C/CAG funding/partnership brought to effort:í'! Funds for Staff (S3Of matching){t Energy Strategy Support (printing, copying)í') San Mateo County Energy Watch (pass though)

San lvlateo County Energy WotchC / CAG-PG&E Local Government Partnership

+¡ 53,500,000 Program Budget+ Energy Efficiency lmprovements<Ð Municipat, Commercia[, Residential Sectors{'} San Mateo County Department of Pubtic

Works in partnership with Cl CAG

Joint Venture Silicon ValleySustai nable Si licon Valtey

ICLEI-Citíes for Climate Protectiont¡ Purchasing Powerr') Pol¡cy Developmentr.' Workshops

rD Local Project Carbon Offset Funding

Sustainabte San lvlateo CountyReporting:{Þ Ind¡cators Report

u Community GHG Emissions

+> Workshops for Green Business

SustainableSan Mateo CountyEconomy. Equíty. Environmenf .

lúateo County Energy Strategy

Goals:

+ Reduced Energy DemandrÐ Water Conservationrà Collaboration between Cities and with Utilities+ Leadership From The Top<¡ Clean and Green Economic Development

CO2 San lvlateo CountyEnergy Strategy Earty Mitestones:

¡¡ Establish 2005 Basetine Energy Use¡r Establish 2005 Baseline Water Use¡r Cottaboration Process with Utititiesl"' ldentify Lead Economic Organization¡¡ Cities designate Etected and Staff

contact(Compteted by December 2008)

COZ San lvlateo

Climate Action Countywide

' Funded ìiì part by a grant from the Bay Ar€a Air euatity Manãgement Di5trict

Lø

CICAG AGEI{DA REPORTDate:

To:

From:

Subject:

October 27,2008

Congestion Management & Environmental Quality (CMEe) Committee

John Hoang

Update on the 2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study - Final Report and Action plan

(For further information contact John Hoang at363-4105)

RECOMMENDATION

That the CMEQ receives an update on the 2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor Study. This item is forinformation only. No action is required.

FISC,A.L IMPACT

$589,000 jointly funded by C/CAG (25%), San Mateo County Transportation Authority (25%), and SanraClara Valley Transportation Aurhority (50%)

SOURCE OF'FUNDS

Funding for C/CAG's share is from the federal planning funds provrded to C/CAG by the MetropolitanTransportation Commlssion.

BACKGROUNDIDISCUS SION

The purpose of the Study, which was initiated in2004,is to identiff short, medium and long-term options foraddressing congestion issues relating to the approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge and Highway l0i betweenRoutes 84 and 85. The objective of the study is to define and evaluate traffrc improvements inthe study areathat address the Study goals which included: facilitating access; enhancing economic opportunities; optrmiznguse of existing infrastructure; reducing congestion and local community impacts; and minimizingenvironmental impacts on sensitive resources.

Cities involved with the project includes Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, palo Alto, andMountain View. Other stakeholders consist of Caltrans and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

The final report was completed in August 2008. Additional work was performed to develop an Action planproviding a framework for advancing selective projects into the next phase. The Action Plan includes twocategories: 1) Projects considered for project development, construction, andlor implementation (near-Termimprovements: 0 - 5 years; and 2) Projects that requires additional engineering analysis and/or preliminaryengineering (longer than 5 years).

ATTACHMENT

. PowerpointPresentation

. 2020 Peninsula Gateway Corridor - Definition of problem

. 2020 Peninsula Gateway Comdor Project Flyer

11

TZ

1ç-Ìr.::-., :i., I Ég.ìl_i:'. .:-:i:gê '' :':

'::

rôädway irilprovement options foraddressing traffic congestion and localcommunity impact due to regional trafficbetween Hwy 101 and the DumbartonBridge within the project study area

2O2O PENf NSUtA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

L3

i'ii]:1::.'l]:.;,.....,..1:.',.-.':limprovementd'i tudy area that'"address the Study Goals:- Facilitate access between Hwy '101 and

Dumbarton Bridge

- Enhance economic opporlunities

- Optimize use of exlsting infrastructure

- Minimize environmental impacts on sensitiveresources.

202O PENINSULA GAIEWAY C,OIìRIDOR STUDY

'þêak commute periöd'5i' : '.:

. Unconventional bridge and highway connections

. Neighborhood traffic impacts

' Older cloverleaf interchanges, short freewayramps, poorly configured off-ramps with surfacestreets

. Lack of auxiliary lanes

. High accident rates on ceftain road segments

2O2O PÊNINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

L4

iv.ijÌiots,tr,.fal niip.l3lqlrcjïpublic

. 71 potential alternative solutions

. Themes developed and improvementsdefined

. Assessment of benefits, costs, and impacts

. Detailed analysis of eight representativesolutions

2020 PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

ffiffi.'"sLanes from SR

. $60M: San Mateo Co. (US-10'1 Widening /AuxLanes from Embarcadero Rd to SR 84 (Marsh Rd).

. Final Study Report Completed July 2008

* From the state Transportation tnfrastructure Bond - prop 1B corridorMobílity lmprovement Account - CM\A Program

2O2O PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR SIUDY

15

. Willow Road operational improvements and ITS(East of Hwy 101)

. University Avenue operational improvements andITS (East of Hwy 101)

. Hwy 101/University l/C improvements (West side). Residential traffic management elementsincorporated into capital projects

2O20 PENlNSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

L6

uràdtmþ¡Pmand ¡+trffi il B -sçd h¡ll turtpdttuG! &turgaù¡ Pd(ß, ùÉÞlkffiô4adgÉ

202O PENINSULA GATËWAY COIìRIDOR 5TTJDY

2O2O PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

L7

::ì:-:t:

. Grade Separation at Bayfront Expwy/Willowand Bayfront Expwy/U n iversity

. Direct flyover connection between BaylrontExpwy/Marsh and Hwy 101 north of Marsh

2.020 PENINSULA GATEIVAY CORRIDOR STI.JDY

. Hwy l0lluniversity l/C improvements (East

2020 PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

L8

tuhrryñañ.-qFffiÉ I þÈftbryÉhå- - lE' O O {r e D e e

it-¡¡eccglCrsOlCC

ffieCg¡OCeoFldel-liqe{-ffi Hdrtdffi I Ep{

lF a * .ßr,úGÈËxËr¡ñ¡J htÉcrtryúÐ-ætH d ¡Edû | ¡\É lE EG t sßtrÉffiGEEl'vfl/üÉryrffiq¡ùËffi1Ë'þt

l* Ð e rø¡ú6*GG

202O PENINSULA GATEWAY COfiRIDOR STUDY

2020 PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

1.9

zø

2O2O PENINSULA GATEWAY CORRIDOR STUDYDefinition of Problem

_*ql_-._R

Q 1¿lcgll¡qpnol conr¡ectlon'bsfii,æn Dumbortan B@e trd- V5 lgl wfthserarecorgertlon.

ø Corgestion an US t 0t cornes ffie fo dlw¡t Ìn{:o Eìqst PdoÄÍb neighbortþodt. {e.9, P{¡lgps ord Oolke,{w,}

Ç! Witt*,* *ooU elP€ríènccs sercrë cûngêstiofì bêtÌ\€srBoyfrom Epwy ond US I 0ì .

@ HEh on<o¡np velum¡s from Embqreodurp Rnqd c¡éqtB¡bofllmeçkqn NB US ì0ì.

@ HfgF on+omp rolumeslrom ShorelinÊ Bfrd, c¡eote:botlteneck on 5E US I 0l,

@ qoo¿*of ",rtu

iûl€.cftangss seole {re(¡vlng prÐdefts onmqlnlin€.

$ T,,onstions toñno¡¡ HO/ lorcs oçat6 uÊoving íssues

@ UoO. A o*Ulory hnes betnnør aloo€ty spoced llrr€fiacíomonqigñ poor nerg€ nnd d¡mrge mndfiioni.

$ Co,ng"stio on Ur¡i¡qß¡ty Alen'rê fi¡erB Mfic to \ÀroadlondRood.

@ Uttconventionol interchonge seqter sur-fose eteetcongerûl'or¡ {e.9. ñreJ€g ¡ôtêrseclión gfV$oo*ld+¡Etoodrrr/rcm pEl

@ S*dy oreo trc l '' espqeity.€nÞênholt:ng eäreets. (e.g. WllqrvRood ord Uni

!

l1

t ,.,ar¡lJ{Stfl1a

a¡l6elllÍ¡t'*'--

..**ü,{,'" -,.r

,'ìtstntÍ . '.

",t

'ì-.-ÈtrI--

F\]ll

_--;

July 2008

2020 Pen insu la Gateway Corridor StudyEvaluation of Potential Traffic lmprovements to the Connections

of US-101and the Dumbarton Bridge

DEFINITION OF PROBLEM

The existing State hishways withinthe study area all experiencesubstantial traffic demand and pooroperat¡ng conditions during the peakcommute periods.

SÏUDY OBJECTIVESThe purpose of the study is to identifyshoft, medium, and long-rangeroadway improvement options foraddressing traffic congestion issues.

The objective was to define andevaluate a lternative trafficimprovements in the Study area thataddress the following goals:

. Facilitate access;

. Enhance economicopportunities

. Optimize use of existingi nfrastructure

. Reduce congestion and localcommunity impacts; and

. Minimize environmental impactson sensitive resources

This study was prepared inconjunction w¡th other transportationplanning efforts.

The study area encompasses US-107 between SR 84 (Woodside Road) and SR85 (Stevens Creek Freeway) junction, as well as SR 84 (Bayfront Expressway)from the Dumbarton Brid(e landing to IJS-707 including the connect¡ng streetsbetween the Bayfront Expressway and US-707.

STUDY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Meetings - Oversight provided by Policy and Technical Advisory Committees.Over 8O meetings total.

Public lnput Process - Over 300 project ideas and suggestions were re-ceived through engagement of key stakeholders and community groups.

Conceptual Solutions - 71 potential projects generated for "Universe of Al-ternatives" from project ideas.

Assessment of Alternatives - Performed evaluation of traffic benefits, con-struction costs, and potential impacts utilizing a "high-medium-low" ap-proach. Completed deta¡led engineering analysis for eight representativeproject solutions.

Comparison of Solutions and Fíndíngs - Compared benefits and costs be-tween alternatives and summarized results.

categorization of Alternatives - Project alternatives were grouped into differ-ent categories to determine projects for development and implementation.

Secured $84M (SC Co.) and $60M (SM Co.) in funding from CM|A program

Proiectsponsors: ØÐ'ìä'iåi;!,';"""July 2008 DRAFÍ

ZZ

ACTION PllN (Draft)Provides a framework for advancing projects to implementation and further project development (engineer analysis).

IMPLEMENTATION C¡ty Cost Potential lmpacts

Proposed lmprovementsChange Reduce¡n Con- localgesit¡on traffic

Visual Noise Env

Smart Corridors - lntell¡gent Transpoftation Systems (lTS) and Traf-fic lncident Management

TrclficBenefits

TrafficBenefits

Change Reducein Con- localgestion traffic

$$-$$$ varies varies varies

Cost Potential lmpacts

Willow Road operational improvements and ITS - Signaltiming dur-¡ng peak periods, exit/entrance right turn pockets, or prohibit leftturn dur¡ng peak periods

University Avenue operational improvements and ITS - Signal tim-ing during peak periods, exit/entrance r¡ght turn pockets, or pro-hibit left turn during peak periods)

Hwy tOl- / University lnterchange improvements (West side) -Phase 2 improvements and bikelpedestrian facility

Residential traff¡c management elements incorporated into capitalprojects -To be included as part of capital projects

ADDITIONAL ENG I NEERING ANALYSIS

Proposed lmprovements

EPA,

MP o

o

var es

al

o

O

oo $-$$

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

cty

Reco nstruct EmbarcaderøOregon intercha n ge.erations for Bike/Ped lanes

Reconstruct San Antonio interchange.

Grade Separations at Bayfront Expwy'/W¡llow and Bayfront Expwy/University

Directflyover connection between Bayfront Expwy/Marsh and Hwy101 north of Marsh

Willow Road (east of Hwy 101) - Separate locat and regional traffic

UniversityAve (east of H\4y 101) - Separate local and regionaltraf-fic

Hvty L01- / Universþ lnterchange improvements (East side)

Visual Noise

o

o

$$$s o o o

o

$$$$ varies varies varies varies

$$$$$ varies varies varies varies

o $$-$$$ varies varles varies varies

lncludes cons¡d-

Env RoW

YX'oo$$$ooooiX'o$$$ooooEPA,

MP

MP,RWC

EPA,

MP

o

ooo

o

oEPA.

Mp O var es

varies O

o

2O2O Peninsula Gateway Corridor StudJuly2008 DRAFT

ND¿(J

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

CICAG AGENDA REPORT

October 27,2008

Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee (CMEQ)

Richard Napier, Executive Director

Review and recommend approval of projects to be funded by the MetropolitanTransportation Commission (MTC) under the Lifeiine Transportation Program fora tofal amount of $1 ,925,121 .

(For further information please contact Jean Higaki at 650-599-1462)

RECOMMENDATION

That the CMEQ Committee review and recommend approval of projects to be funded by theMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) under the Lifeline Transportation Program foralotal amount of $1,925,121.

FISCAL IMPACT

This program has approximately $3,007,339 available for San Mateo County for the Tier 1

Program starting in fiscal year 2008-09 through fiscal year 2009-2011. All unused funds will bereturned to the program for use in a later cycle,

SOURCE OF'FUNDS

The State and Federal funding sources include State Transit Assistance (STA), Proposition 1Bfunds, and Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds.

BACKGROUNDIDISCUS SION

The purpose of the program is to fund community-based transportation projects that improve themobility of low-income residents. This is an MTC program that C/CAG will administer for SanMateo County. A call for projects was issued on August 15, 2008 and applications were due onOctober 1, 2008.

Per MTC guidelines, C/CAG may elect to make an exception to the competitive process byrecommending that MTC allocate aportion of thç STA funds directly to a transit operator forLifeline transit operations within the County. C/CAG recommends that MTC fund SamTrans$500,000 from the Second-Cycle Lifeline Transportation Program for fixed route 280 in EastPalo Alto and$428,423 for the fixed route 17 on the Coastside without participating in thecompetitive process. Funding will support proposed service expansion on fixed route 280 andthe continuation of service on fixed route 17. Both fixed routes directly serve identifiedcommunities of need.

For this cycle four applications were received.$2,109,526 being requested and approximately

The program was under subscribed with$3,007,339 available. There is a20%olocal

24

match required and the sponsor or partner agency must be able to receive state or federal funds.Project funding still very limited due to the limitation of the funding sources. STA and JARCfunds were exhausted while much of the Prop lB funds remain unspent, as projects could notmeet the Prop 1B funding source criteria.

For the selection of projects, C/CAG staff organized a selection committee composed of JudaTolmasoff from the County Legislative office, Joe Hurley from San Mateo TransportationAuthority, William Allen from the MTC Minority Citizens Advisory Committee, Kenneth Folanfrom MTC, and Tom Madalena from C/CAG. This committee convened on October 9, 2008 toftnaltze scoring of the applications and to identify the best-fit fund sources to projects. Thecommittee recommended to partially fund three of the four projects.

The funding recommendation and identified fund source will go to the C/CAG board forapproval in November. Once approved, the recommendation will be sent to MTC for adoption.MTC will then allocate funding or execute funding agreements with each project sponsor basedthe identified funding source. As administrator, C/CAG staff will be responsible for reviewingquarterly reports and invoices submitted by the project sponsors, prior to reimbursement byMTC.

ATTACTIMENT

o Lifeline Transportation Program Funding Recommendation

Z5

Lifeline Transportation Program Funding Recommendation

Available Source $Sum of awarded funds

Left over $

t\]gt

Aqencv Project Total STA funds 1B funds JARG fundsTotal $ To Be:,. Funded

Total $Reouested Comments/ Concerns

Samtrans Fixed Route 280 N/A 500,000 0 0 500.00( 500.000 Off the toD non competitiveSamtrans Fixed Route 17 N/A 428.423 0 0 428,423 428.423 Off the too non comoetitive)alv Citv Bavshore Shuttle Service 78.2 443.493 0 0 443.493 481 014

lity of East Palo AltoEPA Youth Shuttle, Manager, Bus shelters,Shuttle Operatations 77.6 249.382 72,000 139.393 460.775 499,759

iamTrans fransit Awareness ODtion 69.4 0 0 0 0 100.080

ihelter NetworkVan purchase and operations for shelterresident transÞortation 73 0 28.000 64,430 92.430 100,250

1.621 .298 1,182,218 203.823 3,007,3391.621 .298 100.000 203,823 1,925.121

0 1.082.218 0 1.082.218