HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Transit Center Update____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: April 19, 2021
Disposition: Accepted report
Agenda Item No: 7.a
Meeting Date: April 19, 2021
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Bill Guerin, Director City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: TRANSIT CENTER UPDATE
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL UPDATE FROM GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT REGARDING THE NEW DOWNTOWN SAN
RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report and provide feedback to staff.
DISCUSSION: In June 2012, the City Council approved the Downtown Station Area Plan,
setting the stage to create vibrant, mixed-use, livable areas supported by a mix of transit
opportunities, including passenger rail service by the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) downtown San Rafael station. SMART is now in full revenue operations including
the Larkspur extension that has bisected the existing Bettini Transit Center. The impact to the
existing transit center is significant and Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District (GGBHTD) has undertaken the development of an evaluation of alternative locations
for the Transit Center. The new Transit Center will largely be funded by Regional Measure 3
(Attachment A) and is shown on the accompanying expenditure plan (Attachment B).
Staff from the City, GGBHTD, Marin Transit, SMART, and others developed and evaluated a
series of options that culminated in three recommended alternatives that were presented to
Council on October 17, 2016 in the San Rafael Transit Final Report. In spring of 2017, the
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) provided $1.25 million to GGBHTD to complete the
environmental analysis and develop the conceptual design for the new transit center.
GGBHTD hired a team led by Kimley-Horn to develop their environmental analysis and
preliminary design that will culminate in a preferred option when the environmental review is
completed.
GGBHTD held public outreach meetings, conducted surveys, and reached out to various
advisory groups to get feedback on the proposed ideas. The team briefed the Council on the
progress of the environmental analysis on September 4, 2018. More recently, GGBHTD has
spent considerable time refining the conceptual design of the three alternatives and developing
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
transportation and traffic analyses to support the selection of a preferred alternative. GGBHTD
anticipates releasing the Draft Environmental Impact Report in late spring 2021 for public
comment.
The location of the transit center will have a significant impact on the nearby land use patterns
because the new transit center and nearby SMART station will likely cause transit-oriented
development (TOD) to occur on the surrounding City blocks. This future development will
have property and business tax implications and will impact traffic patterns in this already
congested part of the downtown. The City Council provided “guiding principles” for GGBHTD
to consider in the development of its alternatives (Attachment C). These guiding principles
included maximizing Fourth Street vitality, clearly defining transit center access routes,
improving the use of the Caltrans right-of-way, demonstrate enduring design, and preserving
the Whistlestop building. As part of its environmental analysis, GGBHTD also studied the
transit and traffic implications of the three alternatives. City staff reviewed their report and
summarized comments on each alternative (Attachment D).
The City of San Rafael has a critical role in the approval of the final concept as one of several
agencies that must agree to the plan in order for it to proceed. The California Streets and
Highways Code section 30914.7 (a)(24) states in part “The selected alternative shall be
approved by the City of San Rafael, the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation
District, the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Marin Transit”. (Attachment E). In addition,
the City and GGBHTD on October 27, 2017, signed an MOU (Attachment F) that states, “The
parties agree that the selected alternative must be approved by the City Council”.
GGBHTD is seeking to update the City Council as to what has taken place to date and the next
steps. GGBHTD staff will present the background and concepts to the City Council in order for
the Council and public to ask any questions and provide comments/input.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH: GGBHTD has created a project webpage
(http://goldengate.org/SRTC/) to share information about the project, including the public
meetings and open houses, surveys, videos of presentations, and ways to get involved in the
planning process. The City of San Rafael helps to promote these opportunities to the
community through the City’s website, social media, and the City Manager’s newsletter.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the action requested in this report.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report and provide feedback to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Senate Bill No. 595, see Section 30914.7 (a)(24)
B Expenditure Plan
C Guiding Principles
D Transit and Traffic Analysis Comments
E California Streets and Highway Code Section 30914.7
F MOU Between GGBHTD and City of San Rafael
G Correspondence
~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE AUTHENTICATED )?}ti!i]N ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Senate Bill No. 595
CHAPTER650
An act to add Article 7 ( commencing with Section 28840) to Chapter 3
of Part 2 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Sections
149.6, 30102.5, 30891, 30911, 30915, 30916, 30918, 30920, 30922, and
30950.3 of, and to add Sections 30914.7 and 30923 to, the Streets and
Highways Code, relating to transportation.
[Approved by Governor October 10, 2017. Filed with
Secretary of State October 10, 2017.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 595, Beall. Metropolitan Transportation Commission: toll bridge
revenues: BART Inspector General: Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority: high-occupancy toll lanes.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with
comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related
responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA)
as a separate entity governed by the same governing board as MTC and
makes BATA responsible for the programming, administration, and
allocation of toll revenues from the state-owned toll bridges in the San
Francisco Bay area. Existing law authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates
for certain purposes, including to meet its bond obligations, provide funding
for certain costs associated with the bay area state-owned toll bridges,
including for the seismic retrofit of those bridges, and provide funding to
meet the requirements of certain voter-approved regional measures. Existing
law provided for submission of 2 regional measures to the voters of 7 bay
area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto
tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a
majority of the voters.
This bill would require the City and County of San Francisco and the
other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay area to conduct a special election,
to be known as Regional Measure 3, on a proposed increase in the amount
of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be
used for specified projects and programs. The bill would require BATA to
select the amount of the proposed increase, not to exceed $3, to be placed
on the ballot for voter approval. If approved by the voters, the bill would
authorize BATA, beginning 6 months after the election approving the toll
increase, to phase in the toll increase over a period of time and to adjust the
toll increase for inflation after the toll increase is phased in completely. The
bill would specify that, except for the inflation adjustment, providing funding
to meet the requirements of voter approved regional measures, and as
89
Ch. 650 -2-
otherwise specified in statute, the toll increase adopted pursuant to the results
of this election may not be changed without the statutory authorization of
the Legislature. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. The bill would require BATA to reimburse
from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of
San Francisco for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters.
This bill would require BATA to establish an independent oversight
committee within 6 months of the effective date of the Regional Measure
3 toll increase with a specified membership, to ensure the toll revenues
generated by the toll increase are expended consistent with a specified
expenditure plan. The bill would require BATA to submit an annual report
to the Legislature on the status of the projects and programs funded by the
toll increase.
(2) Existing law authorizes BATA to vary the toll structure on each of
the bay area state-owned toll bridges and to provide discounts for vehicles
classified by BATA as high-occupancy vehicles.
This bill would additionally authorize BATA to provide discounts for
vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash methods
and to charge differential rates based on the chosen method.
This bill, with respect to the Regional Measure 3 toll increase, would
require BATA to provide a 50% discount on the amount of that toll increase
on the 2nd bridge crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle,
who pay tolls electronically or through other noncash methods and who
cross 2 bridges during commute hours, as specified.
Existing law, if BATA establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee
discounts or access for vehicles classified by BATA as high-occupancy
vehicles for any bridge, requires BATA to collaborate with the Department
of Transportation to reach agreement on how the occupancy requirements
shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that bridge.
This bill would instead require BATA to establish those occupancy
requirements in consultation with the department.
(3) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART), governed by a board of directors, with specified powers
and duties relative to the construction and operation of a rapid transit system.
This bill would create the Independent Office of the BART Inspector
General within BART. The bill would provide for the board of directors to
nominate 3 persons to the Governor and for the Governor to appoint one of
those nominees to serve as the Inspector General for a 4-year term. The bill
would require the Inspector General to be removed from office by the board
of directors, subject to the approval of the Governor, under certain
circumstances. The bill would specify the duties and responsibilities of the
Inspector General and would require the Inspector General to submit an
annual report to the board of directors and the Legislature. The bill would
provide for the office to receive $1,000,000 from an allocation of bridge
toll revenue from BATA and, in the second and subsequent years of
operation of the office, would authorize BATA to increase that amount, as
specified. The bill would make these provisions operative upon an
89
-3-Ch.650
affirmative vote to increase tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges
pursuant to Regional Measure 3 or related provisions.
(4) Existing law authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) to conduct, administer, and operate a value pricing
high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane program on 2 corridors included in the
high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County. Existing law
authorizes a HOT lane established as part of this program on State Highway
Route 101 to extend into the County of San Mateo as far as the
high-occupancy lane in the County of San Mateo existed as of January 1,
2011, subject to agreement of the City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County.
This bill would delete the authorization for a HOT lane to extend into the
specified portion of San Mateo County as part of a value pricing program
established on 2 corridors in Santa Clara County. The bill would instead
authorize VTA to specifically conduct, administer, and operate a value
pricing high-occupancy toll lane program on State Highway Route 101 in
San Mateo County in coordination with the City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, as prescribed.
(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted
above.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
( a) The San Francisco Bay area's strong economy and growing population
are placing a tremendous burden on its aging transportation infrastructure.
Between 2010 and 2040, the population is forecasted to grow by 2.3 million,
while the number of jobs are projected to grow by 1.3 million.
(b) Traffic congestion on the region's seven state-owned toll bridges
degrades the bay area's quality oflife, impairs its economy, and shows no
signs of abating. Between 2010 and 2015, combined volumes on the region's
seven state-owned toll bridges grew by 11 percent, while volumes on just
the Dumbarton Bridge, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and the San
Mateo-Hayward Bridge grew by 20 percent.
(c) In 2015, five of the region's top 10 worst congested roadways were
in the South Bay (San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties).
( d) In the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge corridor from Hercules to
San Francisco, weekday traffic speeds average less than 35 mph from 5:35
a.m. until 7:50 p.m.
89
Ch. 650 -4-
( e) Weekday congestion on the west approach to the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the eastbound direction typically begins
before 1 p.m. and continues until 9:30 p.m.
(f) Weekday northbound traffic congestion on State Highway Route 101
from Novato to Petaluma begins by 3 p.m. and typically lasts over three
hours.
(g) Daily peak-hour traffic on State Highway Route 37 between Marin
and Solano Counties jumped over 40 percent from 2010 to 2015.
(h) The region's only rail link across San Francisco Bay, the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART), is 44 years old and faces multibillion-dollar
capital funding shortfalls to accommodate growing ridership and achieve a
state of good repair. Meanwhile, BART ridership is at record levels,
exceeding 128 million in fiscal year 2016, a 27-percent increase from fiscal
year 2010.
(i) Annual ridership on ferries from Alameda, Oakland, and Vallejo to
San Francisco and South San Francisco more than doubled between 2010
and 2016, from I.I million to 2.5 million.
G) Ridership on the weekday transbay bus service provided by the
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District rose 33 percent between 2012 and
2016.
(k) Truck traffic in and out of the Port of Oakland grew by 33 percent
since 2000 and contributes to worsening congestion on the region's bridges
and roadways. An estimated 99 percent of the containerized goods moving
through northern California are loaded or discharged at the port.
(!) The last time bay area voters had the opportunity to approve new
funding for improvements in the bridge corridors was in 2004, when voters
approved Regional Measure 2, a $1 toll increase.
(m) To improve the quality of life and sustain the economy of the San
Francisco Bay area, it is the intent of the Legislature to require the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission to place on the ballot a measure
authorizing the voters to approve an expenditure plan to improve mobility
and enhance travel options on the bridges and bridge corridors to be paid
for by an increase in the toll rate on the seven state-owned bridges within
its jurisdiction.
SEC. 2. Article 7 ( commencing with Section 28840) is added to Chapter
3 of Part 2 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:
Article 7. The Office of the BART Inspector General
28840. (a) There is hereby created in the district an independent Office
of the BART Inspector General to ensure that the district makes effective
use of bridge toll revenue and other revenue and operates efficiently,
effectively, and in compliance with applicable federal and state laws.
(b) (1) The board shall nominate three persons to the Governor who
shall appoint one of the three persons nominated by the board to serve as
the BART Inspector General for an initial four-year term. The board shall
89
-5-Ch.650
have the option to renew the term at will. The BART Inspector General
shall be removed from office by the board, subject to approval of the
Governor, only if either of the following occur:
(A) A two-thirds majority of the members of the board votes for removal.
(B) The Inspector General violates a federal or state law or regulation,
a local ordinance, or a policy or practice of the authority relative to ethical
practices, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of gifts or
contributions.
(2) The reasons for removal of the Inspector General shall be stated in
writing and shall include the basis for removal. The document stating the
reasons for dismissal shall be deemed a public document and posted on the
district's Internet Web site.
( c) Within one year of the operative date of this article, the board shall
nominate three persons to serve as the first BART Inspector General to be
appointed pursuant to subdivision (b ).
28841. The duties and responsibilities of the BART Inspector General
shall include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(a) To examine the operating practices of the district to identify fraud,
waste, and opportunities for efficiencies in the administration of programs
and operations.
(b) To ensure the BART administration, the board of directors, and the
public are fully informed of his or her findings and recommendations.
( c) To identify opportunities to improve the data used to determine project
resource allocations.
( d) To conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations
relating to the district's programs and operations, including, but not limited
to, toll-funded programs.
( e) To identify best practices in the delivery of capital projects and
recommend policies to enable the district to adopt these practices when
practicable.
(f) To recommend policies promoting efficiency in the administration
of programs and operations.
(g) To review and recommend best practices that the district should
follow to maintain positive and productive relations with its employees and
the collective bargaining units representing those employees.
28842. The Office of the BART Inspector General shall receive one
million dollars ($1,000,000) from an allocation ofbridge toll revenue from
the Bay Area Toll Authority. In the second and subsequent years of operation
of the office, the authority may increase the amount of funding allocated
for this purpose to the extent funds are requested and justified by the office
and can be accommodated in the authority's budget.
28843. The BART Inspector General shall report at least annually to
the board of directors and the Legislature with a summary of his or her
:findings, investigations, and audits. The summary shall be posted on the
district's Internet Web site and shall otherwise be made available to the
public upon its release to the board. The summary shall include, but need
not be limited to, significant problems discovered by the BART Inspector
89
Ch. 650 -6-
General and whether recommendations of the BART Inspector General
relative to investigations and audits have been implemented by the district.
28844. Any investigatory file compiled by the BART Inspector General
is an investigatory file compiled by a local law enforcement agency subject
to disclosure pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government
Code.
28845. This article shall become operative upon an affirmative vote of
the residents of the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma to increase tolls pursuant to Section 30923 of the Streets and
Highways Code on the bridges described in Section 30910 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
SEC. 3. Section 149.6 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to
read:
149.6. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 149, 149.7, and 30800, and Section
21655.5 of the Vehicle Code, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) created by Part 12 (commencing with Section 100000) of
Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code may conduct, administer, and operate
a value pricing program on any two of the transportation corridors included
in the high-occupancy vehicle lane system in Santa Clara County in
coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
consistent with Section 21655.6 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) Notwithstanding Sections 149, 149.7 and 30800, and Section21655.5
of the Vehicle Code, the VTA may conduct, administer, and operate a value
pricing program on State Highway Route 101 in San Mateo County in
coordination with the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County and with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority
and consistent with Section 21655.6 of the Vehicle Code.
(c) (1) VTA, under the circumstances described in subdivisions (a) and
(b ), may direct and authorize the entry and use of those high-occupancy
vehicle lanes by single-occupant vehicles for a fee. The fee structure shall
be established from time to time by the authority. A high-occupancy vehicle
lane may only be operated as a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane during the
hours that the lane is otherwise restricted to use by high-occupancy vehicles.
(2) VTA shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Bay Area Toll
Authority to operate and manage the electronic toll collection system.
(d) With the consent of the department, VTA shall establish appropriate
performance measures, such as speed or travel times, for the purpose of
ensuring optimal use of the HOT lanes by high-occupancy vehicles without
adversely affecting other traffic on the state highway system. Unrestricted
access to the lanes by high-occupancy vehicles shall be available at all times,
except that those high-occupancy vehicles may be required to have an
electronic transponder or other electronic device for enforcement purposes.
At least annually, the department shall audit the performance during peak
traffic hours and report the results of that audit at meetings of the program
management team.
89
-7-Ch.650
( e) Single-occupant vehicles that are certified or authorized by the
authority for entry into, and use of, the high-occupancy vehicle lanes in
Santa Clara County and San Mateo County are exempt from Section 21655.5
of the Vehicle Code, and the driver shall not be in violation of the Vehicle
Code because of that entry and use.
(f) VTA shall carry out a value pricing program established pursuant to
this section in cooperation with the department pursuant to an agreement
that addresses all matters related to design, construction, maintenance, and
operation of state highway system facilities in connection with the value
pricing program. An agreement to carry out the program authorized pursuant
to subdivision (b) shall be subject to the review and approval by the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and the San
Mateo County Transportation Authority.
(g) (1) Agreements between VTA, the department, and the Department
of the California Highway Patrol shall identify the respective obligations
and liabilities of those entities and assign them responsibilities relating to
the program. The agreements entered into pursuant to this section shall be
consistent with agreements between the department and the United States
Department of Transportation relating to this program. The agreements shall
include clear and concise procedures for enforcement by the Department
of the California Highway Patrol of laws prohibiting the unauthorized use
of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, which may include the use of video
enforcement. The agreements shall provide for reimbursement of state
agencies, from revenues generated by the program, federal funds specifically
allocated to the authority for the program by the federal government, or
other funding sources that are not otherwise available to state agencies for
transportation-related projects, for costs incurred in connection with the
implementation or operation of the program.
(2) The revenues generated by the program shall be available to VTA
for the direct expenses related to the operation (including collection and
enforcement), maintenance, construction, and administration of the program.
The VTA's administrative costs in the operation of the program shall not
exceed 3 percent of the revenues.
(3) (A) For a value pricing program established pursuant to subdivision
(a), all remaining revenue generated by the program after expenditures made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be used in the corridor from which the
revenues were generated exclusively for the preconstruction, construction,
and other related costs of high-occupancy vehicle facilities, transportation
corridor improvements, and the improvement of transit service, including,
but not limited to, support for transit operations pursuant to an expenditure
plan adopted by the VTA.
(B) For a value pricing program established pursuant to subdivision (b ),
all remaining revenue generated by the program after expenditures made
pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be used in the corridor from which the
revenues were generated exclusively for the preconstruction, construction,
and other related costs of high-occupancy vehicle facilities, transportation
corridor improvements, and the improvement of transit service, including,
89
Ch. 650 -8-
but not limited to, support for transit operations pursuant to an expenditure
plan adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
(h) (1) The VTA may issue bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation
notes, at any time to finance construction and construction-related
expenditures necessary to implement a value pricing program established
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) and construction and construction-related
expenditures that are provided for in an expenditure plan adopted pursuant
to paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), payable from the revenues generated
from the program.
(2) The maximum bonded indebtedness that may be outstanding at any
one time shall not exceed an amount that may be serviced from the estimated
revenues generated from the program.
(3) The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the
maximum allowable by law, payable at intervals determined by the authority.
( 4) Any bond issued pursuant to this subdivision shall contain on its face
a statement to the following effect:
"Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of
California is pledged to the payment of principal of, or the interest on,
this bond."
(5) Bonds shall be issued pursuant to a resolution ofVTA adopted by a
two-thirds vote of its governing board. The resolution shall state all of the
following:
(A) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred.
(B) The estimated cost of accomplishing those purposes.
(C) The amount of the principal of the indebtedness.
(D) The maximum term of the bonds and the interest rate.
(E) The denomination or denominations of the bonds, which shall not
be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(F) The form of the bonds, including, without limitation, registered bonds
and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, the registration,
conversion, and exchange privileges, if applicable, and the time when all
of, or any part of, the principal becomes due and payable.
(G) Any other matters authorized by law.
( 6) The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and
different dates of payment fixed for the bonds of each series. A bond shall
not be required to mature on its anniversary date.
(i) Not later than three years after VTA first collects revenues from any
of the projects described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), VTA shall
submit a report to the Legislature on its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations concerning the demonstration program authorized by this
section. The report shall include an analysis of the effect of the HOT lanes
on adjacent mixed-flow lanes and any comments submitted by the
department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol regarding
operation of the lanes.
SEC. 4. Section 30102.5 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
89
-9-Ch.650
30102.5. Consistent with Section 30918, the Bay Area Toll Authority
shall fix the rates of the toll charge, except as provided in Sections 30921
and 30923, and may grant reduced-rate and toll-free passage on the
state-owned toll bridges within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
SEC. 5. Section 30891 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30891. The commission may retain, for its cost in administering this
article, an amount not to exceed one-quarter of 1 percent of the revenues
allocated by it pursuant to Section 30892 and of the revenues allocated by
it pursuant to Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7.
SEC. 6. Section 30911 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30911. (a) The authority shall control and maintain the Bay Area Toll
Account and other subaccounts it deems necessary and appropriate to
document toll revenue and operating expenditures in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
(b) (1) After providing for expenditures pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 30912 and for operating assistance pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 30914 and subdivision (c) of Section 30914.7 and after the
requirements of any bond resolution or indenture of the authority for any
outstanding revenue bonds have been met, the authority shall transfer on a
regularly scheduled basis as set forth in the authority's annual budget
resolution, the revenues defined in subdivision (b) of Sections 3 0913, 30914,
and 30914.7 to the commission. The funds transferred to the commission
shall be expended for the purposes specified in subdivision (b) of Section
30913 and Sections 30914 and 30914.7. After the commission makes a
determination that the projects and programs funded by the commission
have been completed, the revenues transferred to the commission shall be
expended by the commission for supplemental funding for the projects and
programs identified in subdivision (a) of Section 30914.7 if the voters
approve a toll increase authorized pursuant to Section 30923.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph ( 1 ), the revenues defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 30913 and subdivision (a) of Section 30914 include all
revenues accruing since January 1, 1989.
SEC. 7. Section 30914.7 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to
read:
30914.7. (a) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section
30923, the authority shall, consistent with the provisions of this section fund
the projects and programs described in this subdivision that shall collectively
be known as the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan by bonding or
transfers to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. These projects
and programs have been determined to reduce congestion or to make
improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors, from toll revenues of all
bridges:
89
Ch. 650 -10-
(1) BART Expansion Cars. Purchase new railcars for the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART) to expand its fleet and improve reliability. The
project sponsor is the BART. Five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
(2) Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes. Fund the environmental review,
design, and construction of express lanes to complete the Bay Area Express
Lane Network, including supportive operational improvements to connecting
transportation facilities. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to,
express lanes on Interstate 80, Interstate 580, and Interstate 680 in the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, Interstate 880 in the County of
Alameda, Interstate 280 in the City and County of San Francisco, Highway
101 in the City and County of San Francisco and the County of San Mateo,
State Route 84 and State Route 92 in the Counties of Alameda and San
Mateo, Interstate 80 from Red Top Road to the intersection with Interstate
505 in the County of Solano, and express lanes in the County of Santa Clara.
Eligible project sponsors include the Bay Area Infrastructure Financing
Authority, and any countywide or multicounty agency in a bay area county
that is authorized to implement express lanes. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall make funds available based on performance
criteria, including benefit-cost and project readiness. Three hundred million
dollars ($300,000,000).
(3) Goods Movement and Mitigation. Provide funding to reduce truck
traffic congestion and mitigate its environmental effects. Eligible projects
include, but are not limited to, improvements in the County of Alameda to
enable more goods to be shipped by rail, access improvements on Interstate
580, Interstate 80, and Interstate 880, and improved access to the Port of
Oakland. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall consult and
coordinate with the Alameda County Transportation Commission to select
projects for the program. Eligible applicants include cities, counties,
countywide transportation agencies, rail operators, and the Port of Oakland.
The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
the Alameda County Transportation Commission. One hundred sixty million
dollars ($160,000,000).
(4) San Francisco Bay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit. Provide funding for
a competitive grant program to fund bicycle and pedestrian access
improvements on and in the vicinity of the state-owned toll bridges
connecting to rail transit stations and ferry terminals. Eligible applicants
include cities, counties, transit operators, school districts, community
colleges, and universities. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. One hundred fifty million dollars
($150,000,000).
(5) Ferry Enhancement Program. Provide funding to purchase new
vessels, upgrade and rehabilitate existing vessels, build facilities and landside
improvements, and upgrade existing facilities. The project sponsor is the
San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Three
hundred million dollars ($300,000,000).
( 6) BART to San Jose Phase 2. Extend BART from Berryessa Station
to San Jose and Santa Clara. The project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley
89
-11-Ch.650
Transportation Authority. Three hundred seventy-five million dollars
($375,000,000).
(7) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). Provide funding
to extend the rail system north of the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County
Airport to the Cities of Windsor and Healdsburg. The project sponsor is the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District. Forty million dollars
($40,000,000).
(8) Capitol Corridor. Provide funding for track infrastructure that will
improve the performance of Capital Corridor passenger rail operations by
reducing travel times, adding service frequencies, and improving system
safety and reliability. The project sponsor is the Capital Corridor Joint
Powers Authority. Ninety million dollars ($90,000,000).
(9) Caltrain Downtown Extension. Extend Caltrain from its current
terminus at Fourth Street and King Street to the Transbay Transit Center.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall allocate funding to the
agency designated to build the project, which shall be the project sponsor.
Three hundred twenty-five million dollars ($325,000,000).
(10) MUNI Fleet Expansion and Facilities. Fund replacement and
expansion of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's MUNI
vehicle fleet and associated facilities. The project sponsor is the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. One hundred forty million
dollars ($140,000,000).
(11) Core Capacity Transit Improvements. Implement recommendations
from the Core Capacity Transit Study and other ideas to maximize person
throughput in the transbay corridor. Eligible projects include, but are not
limited to, transbay bus improvements and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lane access improvements. Priority funding shall be the Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit District's (AC Transit) Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects identified
in the study. The project sponsors are the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and AC Transit.
One hundred forty million dollars ($140,000,000).
(12) Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus
Corridor Improvements. Fund bus purchases and capital improvements to
reduce travel times and increase service frequency along key corridors. The
project sponsors are AC Transit and Alameda County Transportation
Commission. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(13) Transbay Rail Crossing. Fund preliminary engineering,
environmental review, and design of a second trans bay rail crossing and its
approaches to provide additional rail capacity, increased reliability, and
improved resiliency to the corridor. Subject to approval by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, funds may also be used for construction, and,
if sufficient matching funds are secured, to fully fund a useable segment of
the project. The project sponsor is the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Fifty
million dollars ($50,000,000).
(14) Tri-Valley Transit Access Improvements. Provide interregional and
last-mile transit connections on the Interstate 580 corridor in the County of
Alameda within the Tri-Valley area of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore.
89
Ch. 650 -12-
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall consult with the Alameda
County Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
and local jurisdictions to determine the project sponsor. One hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000).
(15) Eastridge to BART Regional Connector. Extend Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority light rail from the Alum Rock station to the
Eastridge Transit Center. The project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority. One hundred thirty million dollars ($130,000,000).
(16) San Jose Diridon Station. Redesign, rebuild, and expand Diridon
Station to more efficiently and effectively accommodate existing regional
rail services, future BART and high-speed rail service, and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority light rail and buses. The project sponsor
shall consider accommodating a future connection to Norman Y. Mineta
San Jose International Airport and prioritizing non-auto access modes. The
project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. One
hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(17) Dumbarton Corridor Improvements. Fund planning, environmental
review, design, and construction of capital improvements within Dumbarton
Bridge and rail corridor in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo to relieve
congestion, increase person throughput, and offer reliable travel times.
Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, the projects recommended
in the Dumbarton Corridor Transportation Study and improvements to
facilitate rail and transit connectivity among the Altamont Corridor Express,
Capitol Corridor, and Bay Area Rapid Transit District, including a rail
connection at Shinn Station. The project sponsors are the Bay Area Toll
Authority, Alameda County Transportation Commission, the San Mateo
County Transit District, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
One hundred thirty million dollars ($130,000,000).
(18) Highway 101/State Route 92 Interchange. Fund improvements to
the interchange of Highway 101 and State Route 92 in the County of San
Mateo. The project is jointly sponsored by the City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County and the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000).
(19) Contra Costa Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements.
Fund improvements to the Interstate 680/State Route 4 interchange to
improve safety and reduce congestion, including, but not limited to, a new
direct connector between northbound Interstate 680 and westbound State
Route 4, a new direct connector between eastbound State Route 4 and
southbound Interstate 680, and widening of State Route 4 to add auxiliary
lanes and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The project sponsor is the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority. Two hundred ten million dollars
($210,000,000).
(20) Highway 101-Marin/Sonoma Narrows. Construct northbound and
southbound high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Highway 101 between
Petaluma Boulevard South in Petaluma and Atherton Avenue in Novato.
The project sponsors are the Transportation Authority of Marin and the
89
-13-Ch.650
Sonoma County Transportation Authority. One hundred twenty million
dollars ($120,000,000).
(21) Solano County Interstate 80/Interstate 680/State Route 12
Interchange Project. Construct Red Top Road interchange and westbound
Interstate 80 to southbound Interstate 680 connector. The project sponsor
is the Solano Transportation Authority. One hundred fifty million dollars
($150,000,000).
(22) Interstate 80 Westbound Truck Scales. Improve freight mobility,
reliability, and safety on the Interstate 80 corridor by funding improvements
to the Interstate 80 Westbound Truck Scales in the County of Solano. The
project sponsor is the Solano Transportation Authority. One hundred five
million dollars ($105,000,000).
(23) State Route 37 Improvements. Fund near-term and longer-term
improvements to State Route 37 to improve the roadway's mobility, safety,
and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. For the purposes of
the environmental review and design, the project shall include the segment
of State Route 3 7 from the intersection in Marin County with Highway 101
to the intersection with Interstate 80 in the County of Solano. Capital funds
may used on any segment along this corridor, as determined by the project
sponsors. The project is jointly sponsored by the Transportation Authority
of Marin, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, the Solano
Transportation Authority, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
Funds for this project may be allocated to any of the project sponsors. One
hundred million dollars ($100,000,000)
(24) San Rafael Transit Center. Construct a replacement to the San Rafael
(Bettini) Transit Center on an existing or new site, or both, in downtown
San Rafael. The selected alternative shall be approved by the City of San
Rafael, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, the
Transportation Authority of Marin, and Marin Transit. The project sponsor
is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Thirty
million dollars ($30,000,000).
(25) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements. Fund eastbound
and westbound improvements in the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridor,
including a direct connector from northbound Highway 101 to eastbound
Interstate 580, westbound access and operational improvements in the
vicinity of the toll plaza east of the bridge in Contra Costa County, and
Richmond Parkway interchange improvements. Of the amount allocated to
this project, one hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000) shall be
dedicated to the direct connector from northbound Highway 101 to eastbound
Interstate 580 in Marin County and seventy-five million dollars
($75,000,000) shall be dedicated to the projects in Contra Costa County.
The project sponsors are the Bay Area Toll Authority, the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, and the Transportation Authority of Marin. Two
hundred ten million dollars ($210,000,000).
(26) North Bay Transit Access Improvements. Provide funding for transit
improvements, including, but not limited to, bus capital projects, including
vehicles, transit facilities, and access to transit facilities, benefiting the
89
Ch. 650 -14-
Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa. Priority shall
be given to projects that are fully funded, ready for construction, and serving
rail transit or transit service that operates primarily on existing or fully
funded high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. Eligible applicants are any transit operator
providing service in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Solano, or
Sonoma. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(27) State Route 29. Eligible project expenses include State Route 29
major intersection improvements, including Soscol Junction, and signal and
signage improvements, which may include multimodal infrastructure and
safety improvements between Carneros Highway (State Route 12/121) and
American Canyon Road. The project sponsor is the Napa Valley
Transportation Authority. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000).
(28) Next-Generation Clipper Transit Fare Payment System. Provide
funding to design, develop, test, implement, and transition to the next
generation of Clipper, the bay area's transit fare payment system. The
next-generation system will support a universal, consistent, and seamless
transit fare payment system for the riders of transit agencies in the bay area.
The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Fifty
million dollars ($50,000,000).
(29) Interstate 680/lnterstate 880/Route 262 Freeway Connector. Connect
Interstate 680 and Interstate 880 in southern Alameda County to improve
traffic movement, reduce congestion, and improve operations and safety.
The project sponsor is the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(30) Interstate 680/State Route 84 Interchange Reconstruction Project.
Improve safety and regional and interregional connectivity by conforming
State Route 84 to expressway standards between south of Ruby Hill Drive
and the Interstate 680 interchange in southern Alameda County and
implementing additional improvements to reduce weaving and merging
conflicts and help address the additional traffic demand between Interstate
680 and State Route 84. The project sponsor is Alameda County
Transportation Commission. Eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000).
(31) Interstate 80 Transit Improvements. Fund improvements to support
expanded bus service in the Interstate 80 corridor including, but not limited
to, bus purchases, expansion of the WestCAT storage yard and maintenance
facility. Fund implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Multi-modal Corridor
(AC Transit). The project sponsor is Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000).
(32) Byron Highway-Vasco Road Airport Connector. Fund construction
of a new connector between Byron Highway and Vasco Road south of
Camino Diablo Road as well as shoulder and other improvements to the
Byron Highway, including a railroad grade separation, to improve safety
and access to the Byron Airport and to facilitate economic development and
access for goods movement in East Contra Costa County. The project
sponsor is Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Ten million dollars
($10,000,000).
89
-15-Ch.650
(33) Vasco Road Safety Improvements. Fund the widening oflanes and
construction of a concrete median barrier along 2.5 miles of Vasco Road
beginning approximately three miles north of the Contra Costa/ Alameda
County Line. The project sponsor is Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(34) East Contra Costa County Transit Intermodal Center. Fund the
construction of a Transit Intermodal Center in Brentwood enhancing access
to eBART and Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Overcrossing at State
Route 4. The project sponsor is Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(35) Interstate 680 Transit Improvements. Fund improvements that will
enhance transit service in the Interstate 680 corridor, including, but not
limited to, implementing bus operations on shoulder (BOS),
technology-based intermodal transit centers/managed parking lots and
development of technology to enhance real-time travel information. Fund
implementation of Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to improve first
and last mile transit connectivity. The project sponsor is Contra Costa
Transportation Authority. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30923, if the authority selects
a toll increase to be placed on the ballot in an amount less than three dollars
($3), the funding assigned to the projects and programs identified in
subdivision (a) shall be adjusted proportionately to account for reduced
funding capacity. The authority shall adopt a resolution detailing the updated
Regional Measure 3 capital and operating funding available and listing the
revised funding amounts for each project within 90 days of the certification
of the election by the last county to certify the election on the toll increase.
The authority shall update this resolution as needed to reflect additional
tolls approved in subsequent elections.
(c) (1) Not more than 16 percent, up to sixty million dollars
($60,000,000), of the revenues generated each year from the toll increase
approved by the voters pursuant to Section 30923 shall be made available
annually for the purpose of providing operating assistance as set forth in
the authority's annual budget resolution for the purposes listed in paragraph
(2). The funds shall be made available to the provider of the transit services
subject to the performance measures described in paragraph (3).
(2) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall annually fund
the following operating programs from the revenue generated each year
from the toll increase approved by the voters pursuant to Section 30923 as
another component of the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan:
(A) The San Francisco Transbay Terminal. Eight percent of the amount
available for operating assistance pursuant to paragraph (1 ), not to exceed
five million dollars ($5,000,000). These funds are available for
transportation-related costs associated with operating the terminal. The
Transbay Joint Powers Authority shall pursue other long-term, dedicated
operating revenue to fund its operating costs. To the extent that a portion
or all of the toll revenue provided pursuant to this subparagraph is not needed
89
Ch. 650 -16-
in a given fiscal year, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall
reduce the allocation accordingly.
(B) (i) Expanded Ferry Service. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in
the first year of allocation, fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) in the second
year of allocation, twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) in the third year of
allocation, and twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) in the fourth year
of allocation. These allocation amounts shall be subject to the adjustments
in subdivision (b). In the fifth year of allocation and thereafter, 58 percent
of the amount available for operating assistance pursuant to paragraph (1),
not to exceed thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). These funds shall
be made available to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) to support expanded ferry service,
including increased frequencies of existing routes and the operation of new
routes.
(ii) To the extent that funds provided pursuant to clause (i) are not
requested for expenditure by WETA in a given year, the funds shall be held
by the authority in a reserve account. Those funds shall be made available
to WETA for any capital or operating purpose. Prior to receiving an
allocation of those funds, WETA shall submit a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission detailing how the funds shall be used. An
allocation of those funds shall constitute an augmentation of the funding
provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) and be treated as such in any
reports by the authority regarding the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan.
(C) Regional Express Bus. Thirty-four percent of the amount available
for operating assistance pursuant to paragraph (1), not to exceed twenty
million dollars ($20,000,000), to be distributed for bus service in the bridge
corridors, prioritizing bus routes that carry the greatest number of transit
riders. To the extent that a portion or all of the toll revenue provided pursuant
to this subparagraph is not needed in a given fiscal year, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall reduce the allocation accordingly.
(3) Prior to the allocation of revenue for transit operating assistance under
subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (2), the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission shall:
(A) Adopt performance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership,
or other indicators, as appropriate. The performance measures shall be
developed in consultation with the affected project sponsors.
(B) Execute an operating agreement with the sponsor of the project. This
agreement shall include, but is not limited to, an operating plan that is
consistent with the adopted performance measures. The agreement shall
include a schedule of projected fare revenues or other forecast revenue and
any other operating funding that will be dedicated to the service or terminal.
For any individual project sponsor, this operating agreement may include
additional requirements, as determined by the commission.
(C) In an operating agreement executed pursuant to subparagraph (B),
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall grant a project sponsor
at least five years to achieve the adopted performance measures. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall use a ridership forecast as
89
-17-Ch.650
the basis for performance measures adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A)
and to establish performance measures in following years. If the transit
service of a project sponsor does not achieve the performance measures
within the timeframe granted to the project sponsor, the project sponsor
shall notify the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission may revise the performance measures, extend
the timeframe to achieve the performance measures, or take action to reduce
the funding available for operations if the performance measures are not
met within the new timeframe.
( 4) Prior to Metropolitan Transportation Commission providing funding
to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA) under subdivision (a) or this subdivision, WETA and the MTC
shall do the following, as applicable:
(A) WETA shall adopt a plan that includes systemwide and route-specific
performance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership, and any other
measures as deemed appropriate by WETA in consultation with MTC.
(B) WETA and MTC shall execute an operating agreement that
establishes a five-year plan for new or enhanced services and outlines
incremental steps needed to achieve a reasonable level of service productivity
and cost-effectiveness as compared to similar ferry services provided across
the bay area.
(C) Subsequent to the time period identified in subparagraph (B), and if
reasonable, but incomplete progress has been achieved to meet the
performance measures identified in subparagraph (A), WETA, in
consultation with MTC, may propose a new timeframe, not longer than an
additional five years, to achieve the performance measures and take needed
steps to remedy the service to meet the measures. In the event that the
performance measures are not met within the new timeframe, WETA may
seek additional time to achieve the measures and MTC may determine
whether services should continue and may establish other conditions to
service in consultation with WETA. In all cases, funds not spent or made
available to WETA shall be returned to the reserve account established
pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
(D) WETA shall use the plan identified in subparagraph (A) to prioritize
the use of capital funding made available by this section to support its
mission as the operator of ferry services.
(E) Nothing in this section shall restrict WETA with respect to meeting
its obligations as the coordinating agency for water transit response to
regional emergencies.
(d) (1) For all projects authorized under subdivision (a), the project
sponsor shall submit an initial project report to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission within six months of the election approving
the toll increase. This report shall include all information required to describe
the project in detail, including the status of any environmental documents
relevant to the project, additional funds required to fully fund the project,
the amount, if any, of funds expended to date, and a summary of any
impediments to the completion of the project. This report, or an updated
89
Ch. 650 -18-
report, shall include a detailed financial plan and shall notify the commission
if the project sponsor will request toll revenue within the subsequent 12
months. The project sponsor shall update this report as needed or requested
by the commission. No funds shall be allocated by the commission for any
project authorized by subdivision (a) until the project sponsor submits the
initial _pr~ject report, and the report is reviewed and approved by the
comm1ss1on.
(2) If multiple project sponsors are listed for projects listed in subdivision
(a), the commission shall identify a lead sponsor in coordination with all
identified sponsors, for purposes of allocating funds. For any projects
authorized under subdivision (a), the commission shall have the option of
requiring a memorandum of understanding between itself and the project
sponsor or sponsors that shall include any specific requirements that must
be met prior to the allocation of funds provided under subdivision (a).
( e) If a program or project identified in subdivision (a) has cost savings
after completion, taking into account construction costs and an estimate of
future settlement claims, or cannot be completed or cannot continue due to
delivery or financing obstacles making the completion or continuation of
the program or project unrealistic, the commission shall consult with the
program or project sponsor. After consulting with the sponsor, the
commission shall hold a public hearing concerning the program or project.
After the hearing, the commission may vote to modify the program or the
project's scope, decrease its level of funding, or reassign some or all of the
funds to another project within the same bridge corridor. If a program or
project identified in subdivision (a) is to be implemented with other funds
not derived from tolls, the commission shall follow the same consultation
and hearing process described above and may vote thereafter to reassign
the funds to another project consistent with the intent of this chapter.
(f) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30923, the
authority shall within 24 months of the election date include the projects in
a long-range bridge toll plan. The authority shall update its long-range plan
as required to maintain its viability as a strategic plan for funding projects
authorized by this section. The authority shall, by January 1, 2020, submit
its updated long-range bridge toll plan to the transportation policy committee
of each house of the Legislature for review. This subdivision, to the extent
a plan is prepared under this section, supersedes the requirement to prepare
and submit a 20-year toll bridge expenditure plan to the Legislature for
adoption pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 30914.
(g) This section does not alter the obligations of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission with respect to the requirements of Section
65080 of the Government Code.
SEC. 8. Section 30915 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30915. (a) With respect to all construction and improvement projects
specified in Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7, project sponsors and the
department shall seek funding from all other potential sources, including,
but not limited to, the State Highway Account and federal matching funds.
89
-19-Ch.650
The project sponsors and department shall report to the authority concerning
the funds obtained under this subdivision.
(b) Local funds that have previously been committed to projects and
programs identified in subdivision (a) of Section 30914.7 shall not be
supplanted by the funding assigned to projects and programs pursuant to
Section 30914.7 unless the project sponsor has secured a full funding plan
for the project, or the local funds are needed to maintain transit service
levels or fund a critical safety or maintenance need.
SEC. 9. Section 30916 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30916. (a) The base toll rate for vehicles crossing the state-owned toll
bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the commission as of January
1, 2003, is as follows:
Number of Axles
Two axles
Three axles
Four axles
Five axles
Six axles
Seven axles & more
Toll
$1.00
3.00
5.25
8.25
9.00
10.50
(b) If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section 30921,
commencing July 1, 2004, the base toll rate for vehicles crossing the bridges
described in subdivision (a) is as follows:
Number of axles
Two axles
Three axles
Four axles
Five axles
Six axles
Seven axles & more
Toll
$ 2.00
4.00
6.25
9.25
10.00
11.50
(c) (1) If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section 30923,
the authority shall increase the base toll rate for vehicles crossing the bridges
described in subdivision (a) from the toll rates then in effect by the amount
approved by the voters pursuant to Section 30923. The authority may,
beginning six months after the election approving the toll increase, phase
in the toll increase over a period of time and may adjust the toll increase
for inflation based on the California Consumer Price Index after the toll
increase has been phased in completely.
(2) Revenue generated from the adjustment of the toll to account for
inflation pursuant to paragraph (1) may be expended for the following
purposes:
89
Ch. 650 -20-
(A) Bridge maintenance and rehabilitation necessary to preserve, protect,
and replace the bridge structures consistent with subdivision (b) of Section
30950.3.
(B) Supplemental funding for the projects and programs authorized
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30914.7.
(d) The authority shall increase the amount of the toll only ifrequired to
meet its obligations on any bonds or to satisfy its covenants under any bond
resolution or indenture. The authority shall hold a public hearing before
adopting a toll schedule reflecting the increased toll charge.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the adoption of
either a discounted commute rate for two-axle vehicles or of special
provisions for high-occupancy vehicles under terms and conditions
prescribed by the authority in consultation with the department.
SEC. 10. Section 30918 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30918. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to maintain tolls on all of
the bridges specified in Section 30910 at rates sufficient to meet any
obligation to the holders of bonds secured by the bridge toll revenues. The
authority shall retain authority to set the toll schedule as may be necessary
to meet those bond obligations. The authority shall provide at least 30 days'
notice to the transportation policy committee of each house of the Legislature
and shall hold a public hearing before adopting a toll schedule reflecting
the increased toll rate.
(b) The authority shall increase the toll rates specified in the adopted toll
schedule in order to meet its obligations and covenants under any bond
resolution or indenture of the authority for any outstanding toll bridge
revenue bonds issued by the authority and the requirements of any constituent
instruments defining the rights of holders of related obligations of the
authority entered into pursuant to Section 5922 of the Government Code
and, notwithstanding Section 30887 or subdivision (d) of Section 30916 of
this code, or any other law, may increase the toll rates specified in the
adopted toll schedule to provide funds for the planning, design, construction,
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and seismic
retrofit of the state-owned toll bridges specified in Section 30910 of this
code, to provide funding to meet the requirements of Sections 30884 and
30911 of this code, and to provide funding to meet the requirements of
voter-approved regional measures pursuant to Sections 30914, 30921, and
30923 of this code.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, the authority's toll structure for the
state-owned toll bridges specified in Section 30910 may vary from bridge
to bridge and may include discounts consistent with the following:
(1) The authority may include discounts for the following vehicles:
(A) Vehicles classified by the authority as high-occupancy vehicles.
(B) Vehicles that pay for tolls electronically or through other non-cash
methods. The authority may charge differential rates based on the chosen
method.
89
-21-Ch.650
(2) The authority shall provide a 50-percent discount on the amount of
the toll increase approved pursuant to Section 30923 on the second bridge
crossing for those commuters using a two-axle vehicle who pay tolls
electronically or through other noncash methods and who cross two bridges
specified in Section 30910 during commute hours. The authority shall
establish reasonable and practical operating rules to implement this
paragraph.
(d) If the authority establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts
or access for vehicles classified by the authority as high-occupancy vehicles
for any bridge or segments of a highway that connect to the bridge, the
authority shall establish the occupancy requirements that shall apply on
each segment of highway that connects with that bridge, in consultation
with the department.
(e) All tolls referred to in this section and Sections 30916, 31010, and
31011 may be treated by the authority as a single revenue source for
accounting and administrative purposes and for the purposes of any bond
indenture or resolution and any agreement entered into pursuant to Section
5922 of the Government Code.
(f) It is the intent of the Legislature that the authority should consider
the needs and requirements ofboth its electronic and cash-paying customers
when it designates toll payment options at the toll plazas for the toll bridges
under its jurisdiction.
SEC. 11. Section 30920 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30920. The authority may issue toll bridge revenue bonds to finance
any or all of the projects, including those specified in Sections 30913, 30914,
and 30914.7, if the issuance of the bonds does not adversely affect the
minimum amount of toll revenue proceeds designated in Section 30913 and
in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of, and subdivision (b) of, Section 30914
for rail extension and improvement projects and transit projects to reduce
vehicular traffic. A determination of the authority that a specific project or
projects shall have no adverse effect will be binding and conclusive in all
respects.
SEC. 12. Section 30922 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30922. Any action or proceeding to contest, question, or deny the validity
of a toll increase provided for in this chapter, the financing of the
transportation program contemplated by this chapter, the issuance of any
bonds secured by those tolls, or any of the proceedings in relation thereto,
shall be commenced within 60 days from the date of the election at which
the toll increase is approved. After that date, the financing of the program,
the issuance of the bonds, and all proceedings in relation thereto, including
the adoption, approval, and collection of the toll increase, shall be held valid
and incontestable in every respect.
SEC. 13. Section 30923 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to
read:
89
Ch. 650 -22-
30923. (a) For purposes of the special election to be conducted pursuant
to this section, the authority shall select an amount of the proposed increase
in the toll rate, not to exceed three dollars ($3), for vehicles crossing the
bridges described in Section 30910 to be placed on the ballot for approval
by the voters.
(b) The toll rate for vehicles crossing the bridges described in Section
30910 shall not be increased by the rate selected by the authority pursuant
to subdivision (a) prior to the availability of the results of a special election
to be held in the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma to determine whether the residents of those counties and of the City
and County of San Francisco approve the toll increase.
( c) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the Elections Code, the Board
of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco and of each of the
counties described in subdivision (b) shall call a special election to be
conducted in the City and County of San Francisco and in each of the
counties that shall be consolidated with a statewide primary or general
election, which shall be selected by the authority.
(2) The authority shall determine the ballot question, which shall include
the amount of the proposed toll increase selected pursuant to subdivision
(a) and a summary of the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan. The ballot
question shall be submitted to the voters as Regional Measure 3 and stated
separately in the ballot from state and local measures.
( d) The ballot pamphlet for the special election shall include a summary
of the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan regarding the eligible projects
and programs to be funded pursuant to Section 30914.7. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall prepare a summary of the Regional
Measure 3 expenditure plan.
( e) The county clerks shall report the results of the special election to
the authority. If a majority of all voters voting on the question at the special
election vote affirmatively, the authority may phase in the increased toll
schedule consistent with subdivision ( c) of Section 30916.
(f) If a majority of all the voters voting on the question at the special
election do not approve the toll increase, the authority may by resolution
resubmit the measure to the voters at a subsequent statewide primary or
general election. If a majority of all of the voters vote affirmatively on the
measure, the authority may adopt the toll increase and establish its effective
date and establish the completion dates for all reports and studies required
by Sections 30914.7 and 30950.3.
(g) (1) Each county and city and county shall share translation services
for the ballot pamphlet and shall provide the authority a certified invoice
that details the incremental cost of including the measure on the ballot, as
well as the total costs associated with the election.
(2) The authority shall reimburse each county and city and county
participating in the election for the incremental cost of submitting the
measure to the voters. These costs shall be reimbursed from revenues derived
89
-23-Ch.650
from the tolls if the measure is approved by the voters, or, if the measure is
not approved, from any bridge toll revenues administered by the authority.
(h) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to this section, the
authority shall establish an independent oversight committee within six
months of the effective date of the toll increase to ensure that any toll
revenues generated pursuant to this section are expended consistent with
the applicable requirements set forth in Section 30914.7. The oversight
committee shall include two representatives from each county within the
jurisdiction of the commission. Each representative shall be appointed by
the applicable county board of supervisors and serve a four-year term and
shall be limited to two terms. The oversight committee shall annually review
the expenditure of funds by the authority for the projects and programs
specified in Section 30914.7 and prepare and submit a report to the
transportation committee of each house of the Legislature summarizing its
findings. The oversight committee may request any documents from the
authority to assist the committee in performing its functions.
(i) If voters approve a toll increase pursuant to this section, the authority
shall annually prepare a report to the Legislature, in conformance with
Section 9795 of the Government Code, on the status of the projects and
programs funded pursuant to Section 30914. 7.
G) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 30916 and Section
30918, the toll increase adopted by the authority pursuant to this section
shall not be changed without statutory authorization by the Legislature.
SEC. 14. Section 30950.3 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended
to read:
30950.3. (a) The authority shall prepare, adopt, and from time to time
revise, a long-range bridge toll plan for the completion of all projects within
its jurisdiction, including those of the Regional Traffic Relief Plan described
in subdivision (c) of Section 30914 and the Regional Measure 3 expenditure
plan described in subdivision (a) of Section 30914.7.
(b) The authority shall give first priority to projects and expenditures
that are deemed necessary by the department and the authority to preserve
and protect the bridge structures.
SEC. 15. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and
school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 ( commencing
with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
0
89
REGIONAL MEASURE 3 EXPENDITURE PLAN ($ in millions)
All- Corridor Annual Operating Program
All Corridors
Transbay Terminal 5
Ferries (Funding ramps up to $35 million over five years)35
Regional Express Bus 20
Annual Operating Program Total 60$
Regional Programs
BART Expansion Cars 500
Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes 300
Ferry Enhancement Program 300
Goods Movement and Mitigation 160
San Francisco Bay Trail / Safe Routes to Transit 150
Capitol Corridor 90
Next Generation Clipper Transit Fare Payment System 50
Regional Programs Subtotal (35%)1,550$
Corridor-Specific Capital Projects
Central (San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge)
Caltrain Downtown Extension 325
Muni Fleet Expansion and Facilities 140
Core Capacity Transit Improvements 140
AC Transit Rapid Bus Corridor Improvements 100
Transbay Rail Crossing 50
Interstate 80 Transit Improvements 25
Central Subtotal (27%)780$
South (San Mateo-Hayward, Dumbarton)
BART to San Jose Phase 2 375
Tri-Valley Transit Access Improvements 100
Eastridge to BART Regional Connector 130
San Jose Diridon Station 100
Dumbarton Corridor Improvements 130
Highway 101/State Route 92 Interchange 50
Interstate 680/SR 84 Interchange Reconstruction 85
Interstate 680/Interstate-880/Route 262 Freeway Connector 15
South Subtotal (34%) 985$
North (Richmond-San Rafael, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Antioch)
Contra Costa 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements 210
U.S. 101 Marin-Sonoma Narrows 120
Solano County Interstate 80/Interstate 680/State Route 12 Interchange Project 150
Interstate 80/Westbound Truck Scales 105
State Route 37 Improvements 100
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) Extension to Windsor & Healdsburg 40
San Rafael Transit Center 30
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements 210
North Bay Transit Access Improvements 100
SR 29 Improvements 20
East Contra Costa County Transit Intermodal Station 15
Byron Highway-Vasco Road Airport Connector 10
Vasco Road Safety Improvements 15
Interstate 680 Transit Improvements 10
North Subtotal (39%)1,135$
Corridor-Specific Capital Projects Subtotal (65%)2,900
Capital Projects Grand Total 4,450
OPERATING PROGRAM
CAPITAL PROJECTS
2/13/18 0
San Rafael Transit Center
Relocation Guidance Report
2/13/18 1
SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER RELOCATION GUIDANCE REPORT
INTRODUCTION
San Rafael looks forward to a successful collaboration with the Golden Gate Bridge District, its transit partners,
transit users, and our community to plan and build an outstanding new transit center that improves regional
transit mobility while also contributing to Downtown San Rafael’s prosperity, vitality, and civic pride.
For a quarter century, the City has steadfastly embraced the focus of our Downtown Vision, and that remains so.
The City values our Downtown being connected regionally with quality transit options.
At the same time, we recognize
that the relocated transit center’s
impacts and influence will extend
far beyond its specific site,
warranting a clear demonstration
of how the solution furthers our
Vision, respecting existing
neighborhood context while also
contributing to the emergence of a more inviting gateway into Downtown.
In fulfillment of the Downtown Vision, numerous City- adopted plans and studies provide substantial direction
and detailed guidance. They will form the City’s basis of review as the process of identifying a preferred option
moves forward.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 4TH OPTION
The 2016 Kimley-Horn Transit Center Relocation
Study identified three alternatives to be further
evaluated and refined for additional consideration as
part of the Bridge District’s study. The City is
concerned that none of these alternatives will
adequately achieve the City’s goals for this
neighborhood.
To address this, the City asked the Bridge District to
identify a 4th Option before initiating Environmental Review, and to actively engage our community in its
development. We appreciate their willingness to do so. This Guidance Report identifies the City’s primary area
of concern associated with relocation of the transit center. It also highlights key improvements the City is
seeking in the 4th Option.
2/13/18 2
DEFINING A TRANSIT HUB FOCUS AREA
To successfully integrate with the existing Downtown and contribute to a neighborhood renaissance, transit
center relocation planning and design must extend beyond its specific site.
The City has identified a
Transit Hub Focus Area
extending ¼ mile circle
around the existing SMART
station. This area is within
easy walking distance for
most transit users, and
includes the retail core, the
area under 101, and private
property zoned for mix use
development.
All forms of mobility within the Hub Focus Area require careful attention, and intersection analyses will need to
extend beyond the boundary.
For the transit center to successfully
integrate with the Downtown,
public gathering spaces within and
adjacent to it, lighting, landscaping,
wayfinding, and other
distinguishing features will be
included in District plans.
Planning for a regional
hub 's extended Impact
Dawnta,,,n~rtungDI
Dawnl_.... Pliffllng Study AIH
POA~
5u11on At.c, Pl,n Sludy NH
GG8Tr,lfir; M,iy~ In ltOnt
Pn,posed Rtglon~ Hub Focus AIM
2/13/18 3
VISION FOR THE HUB FOCUS AREA
The Transit Hub Focus Area will be a vibrant, prosperous neighborhood, welcoming both residents and visitors
with a memorable sense of arrival. Our diverse cultural heritage and historic neighborhoods will be respected,
while encouraging infill development that expresses fresh ideas and urban form.
4TH St. will remain our retail backbone, extending its pedestrian-
friendly hometown sense of place beneath the 101 viaducts. SMART
riders’ approaching or departing the Downtown station will enjoy a
“shady lane” feeling between Mission and 2nd St.
Caltrans’ right-of-way beneath 101 will be visually transformed using
creative lighting, artwork, street vendors, and landscaped pathways
alongside a healthy, restored creek. Bus stop or parking
improvements will increase the functional use of the land.
From 1993 Downtown Vision
The entire Transit Hub Focus Area will be interconnected
along broad, inviting, tree-lined sidewalks teeming with
vitality both day and night.
People will stay, rather than simply pass through the area.
Bicyclists and pedestrians will come and go along safe,
well-defined routes and find abundant bike parking and
bike share opportunities near the transit stations.
Excellent transit connections, functioning in concert with traffic-calmed streets will keep auto traffic moving
efficiently. Curbside “Last mile” pick-up and drop-off will be close by, with both car share opportunities and
easily identified short-term and all-day parking available within walking distance.
The transit center will be clean, safe, well-lit and designed to become an enduring neighborhood landmark. It
will reflect the City’s pursuit of sustainability in its design and operation, and forward-thinking adaptability.
Attractive onsite and nearby public gathering opportunities will benefit transit riders and residents living in a
variety of new housing types over shops and businesses.
"we value:
Senst of Community
Heahhy Economy
Hometown Feel
Complete Urban Community
Strong Identity
Cl11n, Safe ind Attrlctlve
Pleas1ntto Walk In
Adlve, Outdoor 1nd People OrientJtlon
Gathering Place
Historic Htribge
Good Neighbor to Neighborhoods
Easy to Move About
Dlvenlty
Environment.illy Sound Pnctlces
Civic Cooper1tlon
2/13/18 4
KEY 4th OPTION ELEMENTS
The Bridge District has agreed to work with City staff and our residents to develop a 4th Option for relocating the
bus transit center. To focus the design process, the City has identified five key design goals for the 4th Option
alternative.
MAXIMIZE 4TH STREET VITALITY
CLEARLY DEFINE TRANSIT CENTER ACCESS ROUTES
IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEMONSTRATE ENDURING DESIGN
PRESERVE THE WHISTLESTOP BUILDING
A brief description of detailed aspects of these elements follows.
MAXIMIZE 4TH STREET VITALITY
1- Foster 4th Street’s “main street” feeling between Lincoln and Irwin. Accommodate broader tree-lined
sidewalks with fewer vehicle crossings, unique, street-facing storefronts and inviting public space,
adequately sized to allow outdoor dining, family fun, community events, and people watching.
2- Respect the City’s mid-term goal to eliminate vehicle access from 4th St. north onto both West and East
Tamalpais, expanding
opportunities for public space.
3- Continue preventing vehicle
access into Caltrans’ parking
lot on the north side of 4th St,
to maximize pedestrian safety.
4- Identify the safest, most
convenient bikeway crossing
location of Fourth St. at
W. Tamalpais.
5- Prevent permanent 4th St. bus
stops under the freeway to allow for safer shared use of the roadway.
6- Limit any 4th St. transit center driveways to the minimum width necessary, with excellent sight lines.
7- The 4th St. intersection at Hetherton is a priority location for gateway elements, including signature
landscaping, artwork, wayfinding signage, electronic message boards and specialty lighting.
2/13/18 5
CLEARLY DEFINE TRANSIT CENTER ACCESS ROUTES
All east-west downtown access streets between Mission and 2nd
St shall be kept open.
1- Within the Hub Focus Area, prioritize pedestrian
safety. Identify preferred transit center access routes
for student and Canal transit riders.
2- Minimize rider transfer times for rail and bus services.
3- Design adaptive Last Mile pick up and drop off
locations for a minimum of 10 vehicles.
4- Identify preferred nearby public or private
replacement parking space locations for all displaced
existing spaces, plus an additional 60 parking spaces
serving regional transit users.
5- North-south transit center access
for bikes, between Mission and 2nd St., will
be from a two-way Class IV bikeway on W.
Tamalpais
6- Anticipate a landscaped pathway
on the east side of Hetherton between
Mission and 3rd St. where feasible.
7- Wayfinding elements should be integrated into the project,
and complementary to the building design.
8- Incorporate traffic signalization and other technological
methods to increase bus movement efficiency.
9- Safe, inviting mid-block pedestrian routes to the transit
center should be provided, where possible.
•
ClTY LOGO WITH BACKIJGIITliG
--ELECTROMC SIGH
lHON-BUNKJNG OR SCIIOUll(l>
A.OATING lllflECllONAl S1GNS
EXT1!UDEO DISTRCT SJ(lj
l'OI.UMETRIC MOt«IMEHT
EXPAMlEO SIGH BASE
2/13/18 6
IMPROVE UTILIZATION OF THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY
1- Transformation of the Caltrans property will increase transit center
safety and use. Identify modifications that will benefit the project and
the overall improvement of the neighborhood.
2- Explore increasing the efficiency of Caltrans’ land use under the
freeway by either creating a safe, inviting transit center or expanding
parking capacity using vertical lift parking systems.
3- The area under the raised freeway structures should be redeveloped to increase the visual appeal and
unique sense of Gateway arrival into the Downtown. Include elements such as identity graphics, artwork,
creek restoration, landscaped
plazas and sitting areas, historic
markers, electronic message
signs, special effect lighting, and
food trucks and kiosk vendors.
4- Include more street trees on both sides of this roadway to
add visual relief and calm traffic. Accommodate landscaping within
Caltrans’ right-of-way on the eastern frontage of the existing Bettini
Transit Center if Hetherton bus pads are discontinued.
5- Create an attractive landscaped terminus adjacent to the SB
101 on-ramp south of 2nd St.
2/13/18 7
DEMONSTRATE ENDURING DESIGN
1- The relocated
transit center will be a
central facility in the
Downtown, and serve
as a welcoming point
of arrival for regional
travelers and visitors to
San Rafael. In concert with other Gateway features, the building and site should reflect the heritage of
the City, contribute to the City’s Vision for extension of the 4th St. Retail Core, and afford transit users
the safest, most efficient means of using bus and rail services.
2- The transit center should reflect San Rafael’s pattern, scale, and neighborhood heritage, while also
being a unique, innovative architectural statement. Construction materials should produce an
enduring high quality with reasonable ongoing maintenance needs.
3- The Transit Center should be safe, well-lit, and attractively landscaped, creating a welcoming effect for
users and passers-by. Include Gateway features within the site plan and facility design that are
compatible with the City Vision. Nighttime lighting should create a safe, artistic sense of arrival, while
limiting night sky glare.
4- Sustainable elements
should be visible in its site
planning, building
design, and operation.
Identify storm water
pollution prevention,
water and energy
conservation, renewable
energy integration, air and
noise quality, waste
management, and green
construction technology
components.
2/13/18 8
5- Identify locations for appropriately sized public gathering areas to complement the
center’s function as a regional and Downtown hub. These settings would include
attractive seating, unique paving, landscaping, lighting, directional signage,
informational kiosks, historic markers, play areas, public art, trash and recycling
containers, and flexible space for micro-enterprise and event opportunities.
6- Advanced communication technology should be integrated into the transit center
design, including electronic, real-time messaging, and public Wi-Fi.
7- Transit Center planning should accommodate emerging trends in mobility and
mobility technology. Incorporate surrounding site flexibility for change over time.
8- Provide a minimum of 15 ft. wide sidewalks within the block surrounding the new Transit Center
PRESERVE WHISTLESTOP
1- Retain the
Whistlestop building on
its current site, with street
level modifications to
improve pedestrian
enjoyment. Create wider
sidewalks on the south
and west side of the
building.
2- At the north end of Whistlestop, anticipate more public amenities, including possibly a coffee kiosk,
fountain, landscaping, or other gateway features.
3- Anticipate removal of a portion of the south end of the Whistlestop building to create safer transit user
movement across 3rd St. and more interesting public space.
4- Integrate last-mile drop-off/pick up
spaces and a two-way Class IV bikeway
into the W. Tamalpais street section.
Staff Comments – Review of the San Rafael Transportation Center Relocations
Golden Gate Transit and the consultant team did a great job highlighting the environmental issues
associated with the three alternate locations to host the Transit Center. The multimodal and community
considerations received the full attention of staff as we realize the importance of the success of the new
location, at all levels. The following is a summary of circulations items we would like the City Council to
consider for proper circulation along many major arterials.
In general, the transit circulation time and the vehicular delays seem to improve with the Under the
Freeway alternative simply because it is further away from the existing congestion along Hetherton
Street, Second Street and Third Street. Staff concurs with the results shown in the report.
The pedestrian analysis assumes a destination in the downtown to compare the alternatives. The report
did not analyze destinations to the Canal. The City has invested transportation dollars (Grand Avenue
Bridge and E Francisco Boulevard Sidewalk) to encourage the arrivals of multimodal trips from the Canal.
While it is difficult to capture and compare the overall pedestrian experience between the alternatives,
the report fell short of describing the existing pedestrian safety issues that could be attributed to the
legal and illegal crossings. Existing pedestrian safety records and the association of it with numerous and
large driveways should be addressed. The Gateway alternative suggests several driveways ensuring
proper circulation for the busses without recognizing the detriment of the pedestrian experience.
The report Non-Motorized Transportation Section 5.0 was built on incomplete assumptions of
pedestrian circulation in general, and on similar inaccurate assumptions specific to the transit center.
None of the assumptions made were introduced nor discussed with City staff prior to the preparation of
these analysis. Staff will request a major overhaul of the assumptions and the presentation of pedestrian
comparisons of the pedestrian travel.
As we review the circulation for all alternatives, we would like to emphasis the circulation challenges
caused by the short sizes of the blocks west of Heatherton Avenue. The block sizes were bisected by the
TlmeP-,iod 01/01/2015-11l30/2020 ---Number of Colijs10ns: 794
Fatai3 Sevete~11 OtMtV111rNqiq11&
COmpl,iinlofP-,i 13" Prope<tr~Only-530
Dt1'10,...,0U12'2021
Loc.etion DoMllown58"R8fNI
nm.P.ioci01/01/2015•11f30l2020
Ae-ncy SanRa1ael
.,._ ~ ....wi. Pedenian 8qcle
N umber of ColbsiOos: 126
FU ·3 S.-.lflury·& OtMt..._.,lrpy-6Q
DMaC,...,OU1'Z/"lflZ1
SMART tracks. This leaves the City with short blocks which affect our ability to store vehicles and leaves
us with the challenge of clearing the tracks during excessive queuing times. The report does not discuss
the critical nature of queueing near railroads tracks. This is an environmental and safety issue that needs
to be in the center of the considerations. The report needs to recognize the environmental
disadvantages of having large vehicles, on short blocks, near at-grade rail tracks, and the potential
impacts of gridlock near moving trains.
ES.2.2 NO-Build Alternative/Existing Transit Center Site
The No-Build Alternative is presented as an alternative because CEQA mandates it to be part of the
analysis. The report falls short of describing the existing conditions from a multimodal and functional
point of view.
ES.2.2 4th Street Gateway
From a circulation point of view, this option will cause major queueing on Hetherton Street. Due to the
elimination of the southbound right turn, traffic will be diverted to Third Street. The mitigation of the
second right turn lane at Third Street will not provide the needed capacity simply because Third Street
will not be able to deal with added flow especially when the trains are present. The westbound through
traffic usually floods the lanes on Third Street and the right turning traffic will not have room to get off
Hetherton Street. The back-up on Hetherton is expected to extend beyond Fifth Avenue, and maybe
further north. The analysis of the level of service alone will not highlight these critical operational issues.
In addition, the dual southbound right turn lane is not pedestrian friendly. The City invested in removing
the crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection because of the conflict it created with the dual left
turn lane. The introduction of dual right turn lanes would be considered an impact and not a mitigation.
E.S.2.3 Under the Freeway
This alternative presents the best results for travel times along arterials because it takes the bus
movements outside of the core of the traffic activities and congestion. From a pedestrian arrivals point
of view, it is more accessible to the Canal and to San Rafael High School. It also provides less congested
access for all modes from and to the freeways.
ES.2.4 Whistle stop Block
This alternative makes the traffic operations along the 3rd Street and 4th Street frontages very
challenging for all modes. Busses will have a high degree of friction with the trains and vehicles. The
ability for busses to make turns in and out of the bus bays will be impeded by other vehicles waiting at
the lights. The orientation of the bus bays, on the east side, and the closure of Tamalpais Avenue will
entice vehicular traffic to cut through the transit center.
The short blocks with wide driveways create a very hostile environment for pedestrians. This can be
easily seen with unprecedented block-long crosswalks along 4th and 3rd Streets.
Overall Observations:
1- The presentation of alternatives limited the bicycle connection between Second and Fourth
Streets to the Whistlestop Alternative. It is staff’s opinion that all alternatives should include the
completion of this essential bicycle facility as either a part of the project or as a mitigation to its
relocation.
2- The pedestrian metric used for arrivals and destination in this report should be revisited. There
are available resources to create high-level design guidance to exclude known red flags such as
long driveways, concurrent dual vehicular movements with walk times, etc.
3- Existing pedestrian safety issues and safety records should be considered in the alternatives.
4- Bicycle parking and space for bike share should be addressed in all alternatives.
5- The LOS data is presented using VISSIM numbers which are not consistent with the method used
to calculate the LOS by the City. How and when is this issue going to be resolved?
6- While the LOS is not used by CEQA, the consultant is encouraged to review the draft
Transportation Impact Guidelines that are being considered by the City.
7- Although the LOS is calculated through the model and is not the real LOS, the report offered no
comparative summaries of the LOS impacts to allow decision makers to make informed
decisions.
8- Queueing is not typically an environmental issue. However, given the environment and the
safety implication of queueing it should be included in the environmental assessment.
.
--= I T.\l r or c,t I TORN I,\
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRON IC LEGAL MATE RI AL
State of California
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Section 30914.7
30914.7. (a) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30923, the
authority shall, consistent with the provisions of this section fund the projects and
programs described in this subdivision that shall collectively be known as the Regional
Measure 3 expenditure plan by bonding or transfers to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission. These projects and programs have been detennined to reduce congestion
or to make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors, from toll revenues of
all bridges:
(1) BART Expansion Cars. Purchase new railcars for the Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) to expand its fleet and improve reliability. The project sponsor is
BART. Five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
(2) Bay Area Corridor Express Lanes. Fund the environmental review, design, and
construction of express lanes to complete the Bay Area Express Lane Network,
including supportive operational improvements to connecting transportation facilities.
Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, express lanes on Interstate 80, Interstate
580, and Interstate 680 in the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, Interstate 880
in the County of Alameda, Interstate 280 in the City and County of San Francisco,
Highway 101 in the City and County of San Francisco and the County of San Mateo,
State Route 84 and State Route 92 in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo,
Interstate 80 from Red Top Road to the intersection with Interstate 505 in the County
of Solano, and express lanes in the County of Santa Clara. Eligible project sponsors
include the Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority, and any countywide or
multicounty agency in a bay area county that is authorized to implement express lanes.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall make funds available based on
performance criteria, including benefit-cost and project readiness. Three hundred
million dollars ($300,000,000).
(3) Goods Movement and Mitigation. Provide funding to reduce truck traffic
congestion and mitigate its environmental effects. Eligible projects include, but are
not limited to, improvements in the County of Alameda to enable more goods to be
shipped by rail, access improvements on Interstate 580, Interstate 80, and Interstate
880, and improved access to the Port of Oakland. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission shall consult and coordinate with the Alameda County Transportation
Commission to select projects for the program. Eligible applicants include cities,
counties, countywide transportation agencies, rail operators, and the Port of Oakland.
The project sponsors are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Alameda
County Transportation Commission. One hundred sixty million dollars ($160,000,000).
(4) San Francisco Bay Trail/Safe Routes to Transit. Provide funding for a
competitive grant program to fund bicycle and pedestrian access improvements on
and in the vicinity of the state-owned toll bridges connecting to rail transit stations
and ferry terminals. Eligible applicants include cities, counties, transit operators,
school districts, community colleges, and universities. The project sponsor is the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. One hundred fifty million dollars
($150,000,000).
( 5) Ferry Enhancement Program. Provide funding to purchase new vessels, upgrade
and rehabilitate existing vessels, build facilities and landside improvements, and
upgrade existing facilities. The project sponsor is the San Francisco Bay Area Water
Emergency Transportation Authority. Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000).
(6) BART to San Jose Phase 2. Extend BART from Berryessa Station to San Jose
and Santa Clara. The project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority. Three hundred seventy-five million dollars ($375,000,000).
(7) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). Provide funding to extend
the rail system north of the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport to the Cities
of Windsor and Healdsburg. The project sponsor is the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail
Transit District. Forty million dollars ($40,000,000).
(8) Capitol Corridor. Provide funding for track infrastructure that will improve the
performance of Capital Corridor passenger rail operations by reducing travel times,
adding service frequencies, and improving system safety and reliability. The project
sponsor is the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority. Ninety million dollars
($90,000,000).
(9) Caltrain Downtown Extension. Extend Caltrain from its current terminus at
Fourth Street and King Street to the Transbay Transit Center. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall allocate funding to the agency designated to build
the project, which shall be the project sponsor. Three hundred twenty-five million
dollars ($325,000,000).
(10) MUNI Fleet Expansion and Facilities. Fund replacement and expansion of
the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's MUNI vehicle fleet and
associated facilities. The project sponsor is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency. One hundred forty million dollars ($140,000,000).
(11) Core Capacity Transit Improvements. Implement recommendations from the
Core Capacity Transit Study and other ideas to maximize person throughput in the
transbay corridor. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, transbay bus
improvements and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane access improvements. Priority
funding shall be the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's (AC Transit) Tier 1 and
Tier 2 projects identified in the study. The project sponsors are the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and AC
Transit. One hundred forty million dollars ($140,000,000).
(12) Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Rapid Bus Corridor
Improvements. Fund bus purchases and capital improvements to reduce travel times
and increase service frequency along key corridors. The project sponsors are AC
Transit and Alameda County Transportation Commission. One hundred million dollars
($100,000,000).
(13) Transbay Rail Crossing. Fund preliminary engineering, environmental review,
and design of a second trans bay rail crossing and its approaches to provide additional
rail capacity, increased reliability, and improved resiliency to the corridor. Subject
to approval by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, funds may also be used
for construction, and, if sufficient matching funds are secured, to fully fund a useable
segment of the project. The project sponsor is the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000).
(14) Tri-Valley Transit Access Improvements. Provide interregional and last-mile
transit connections on the Interstate 580 corridor in the County of Alameda within
the Tri-Valley area of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livennore. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall consult with the Alameda County Transportation
Commission, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and local jurisdictions to determine
the project sponsor. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(15) Eastridge to BART Regional Connector. Extend Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority light rail from the Alum Rock station to the Eastridge Transit
Center. The project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. One
hundred thirty million dollars ($130,000,000).
(16) San Jose Diridon Station. Redesign, rebuild, and expand Diridon Station to
more efficiently and effectively accommodate existing regional rail services, future
BART and high-speed rail service, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
light rail and buses. The project sponsor shall consider accommodating a future
connection to Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport and prioritizing
non-auto access modes. The project sponsor is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
( 17) Dumbarton Corridor Improvements. Fund planning, environmental review,
design, and construction of capital improvements within Dumbarton Bridge and rail
corridor in the Counties of Alameda and San Mateo to relieve congestion, increase
person throughput, and offer reliable travel times. Eligible projects include, but are
not limited to, the projects recommended in the Dumbarton Corridor Transportation
Study and improvements to facilitate rail and transit connectivity among the Altamont
Corridor Express, Capitol Corridor, and Bay Area Rapid Transit District, including
a rail connection at Shinn Station. The project sponsors are the Bay Area Toll
Authority, Alameda County Transportation Commission, the San Mateo County
Transit District, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. One hundred
thirty million dollars ($130,000,000).
(18) Highway 101/State Route 92 Interchange. Fund improvements to the
interchange of Highway 101 and State Route 92 in the County of San Mateo. The
project is jointly sponsored by the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. Fifty million
dollars ($50,000,000).
( 19) Contra Costa Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements. Fund
improvements to the Interstate 680/State Route 4 interchange to improve safety and
reduce congestion, including, but not limited to, a new direct connector between
northbound Interstate 680 and westbound State Route 4, a new direct connector
between eastbound State Route 4 and southbound Interstate 680, and widening of
State Route 4 to add auxiliary lanes and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The project
sponsor is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Two hundred ten million dollars
($210,000,000).
(20) Highway 10 I-Marin/Sonoma Narrows. Construct northbound and southbound
high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Highway 10 l between Petaluma Boulevard South
in Petaluma and Atherton Avenue in Novato. The project sponsors are the
Transportation Authority of Marin and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
One hundred twenty million dollars ($120,000,000).
(21) Solano County Interstate SO/Interstate 680/State Route 12 Interchange Project.
Construct Red Top Road interchange and westbound Interstate 80 to southbound
Interstate 680 connector. The project sponsor is the Solano Transportation Authority.
One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000).
(22) Interstate 80 Westbound Truck Scales. Improve freight mobility, reliability,
and safety on the Interstate 80 corridor by funding improvements to the Interstate 80
Westbound Truck Scales in the County of Solano. The project sponsor is the Solano
Transportation Authority. One hundred five million dollars ($105,000,000).
(23) State Route 37 Improvements. Fund near-tenn and longer-tenn improvements
to State Route 37 to improve the roadway's mobility, safety, and long-tenn resiliency
to sea level rise and flooding. For the purposes of the environmental review and
design, the project shall include the segment of State Route 37 from the intersection
in Marin County with Highway 101 to the intersection with Interstate 80 in the County
of Solano. Capital funds may used on any segment along this corridor, as determined
by the project sponsors. The project is jointly sponsored by the Transportation
Authority of Marin, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, the Solano
Transportation Authority, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. Funds
for this project may be allocated to any of the project sponsors. One hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000)
(24) San Rafael Transit Center. Construct a replacement to the San Rafael (Bettini)
Transit Center on an existing or new site, or both, in downtown San Rafael. The
selected alternative shall be approved by the City of San Rafael, the Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, the Transportation Authority of Marin,
and Marin Transit. The project sponsor is the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and
Transportation District. Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000).
(25) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements. Fund eastbound and
westbound improvements in the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridor, including a
direct connector from northbound Highway l 0 l to eastbound Interstate 580, westbound
access and operational improvements in the vicinity of the toll plaza east of the bridge
in Contra Costa County, and Richmond Parkway interchange improvements. Of the
amount allocated to this project, one hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000)
shall be dedicated to the direct connector from northbound Highway 101 to eastbound
Interstate 580 in Marin County and seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) shall
be dedicated to the projects in Contra Costa County. The project sponsors are the Bay
Area Toll Authority, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the Transportation
Authority of Marin. Two hundred ten million dollars ($210,000,000).
(26) North Bay Transit Access Improvements. Provide funding for transit
improvements, including, but not limited to, bus capital projects, including vehicles,
transit facilities, and access to transit facilities, benefiting the Counties of Marin,
Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa. Priority shall be given to projects that are
fully funded, ready for construction, and serving rail transit or transit service that
operates primarily on existing or fully funded high-occupancy vehicle lanes. The
project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Eligible applicants
are any transit operator providing service in the Counties of Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, Solano, or Sonoma. One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(27) State Route 29. Eligible project expenses include State Route 29 major
intersection improvements, including Soscol Junction, and signal and signage
improvements, which may include multimodal infrastructure and safety improvements
between Cameras Highway (State Route 12/121) and American Canyon Road. The
project sponsor is the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. Twenty million dollars
($20,000 ,000).
(28) Next-Generation Clipper Transit Fare Payment System. Provide funding to
design, develop, test, implement, and transition to the next generation of Clipper, the
bay area's transit fare payment system. The next-generation system will support a
universal, consistent, and seamless transit fare payment system for the riders of transit
agencies in the bay area. The project sponsor is the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission. Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000).
(29) Interstate 680/Interstate 880/Route 262 Freeway Connector. Connect Interstate
680 and Interstate 880 in southern Alameda County to improve traffic movement,
reduce congestion, and improve operations and safety. The project sponsor is the
Alameda County Transportation Commission. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(30) Interstate 680/State Route 84 Interchange Reconstruction Project. Improve
safety and regional and interregional connectivity by confonning State Route 84 to
expressway standards between south of Ruby Hill Drive and the Interstate 680
interchange in southern Alameda County and implementing additional improvements
to reduce weaving and merging conflicts and help address the additional traffic demand
between Interstate 680 and State Route 84. The project sponsor is the Alameda County
Transportation Commission. Eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000).
(31) Interstate 80 Transit Improvements. Fund improvements to support expanded
bus service in the Interstate 80 corridor including, but not limited to, bus purchases,
expansion of the WestCAT storage yard and maintenance facility. Fund implementation
of the San Pablo Avenue Multi-modal Corridor (AC Transit). The project sponsor is
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000).
(32) Byron Highway-Vasco Road Airport Connector. Fund construction of a new
connector between Byron Highway and Vasco Road south of Camino Diablo Road
as well as shoulder and other improvements to the Byron Highway, including a railroad
grade separation, to improve safety and access to the Byron Airport and to facilitate
economic development and access for goods movement in East Contra Costa County.
The project sponsor is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Ten million dollars
($10,000,000).
(33) Vasco Road Safety Improvements. Fund the widening oflanes and construction
of a concrete median barrier along 2.5 miles ofVasco Road beginning approximately
three miles north of the Contra Costa/ Alameda County Line. The project sponsor is
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(34) East Contra Costa County Transit Intennodal Center. Fund the construction
of a Transit Intermodal Center in Brentwood enhancing access to eBART and
Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Overcrossing at State Route 4. The project sponsor
is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).
(35) Interstate 680 Transit Improvements. Fund improvements that will enhance
transit service in the Interstate 680 corridor, including, but not limited to, implementing
bus operations on shoulder (BOS), technology-based intermodal transit
centers/managed parking lots and development of technology to enhance real-time
travel information. Fund implementation of Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to
improve first and last mile transit connectivity. The project sponsor is the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000).
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30923, if the authority selects a toll
increase to be placed on the ballot in an amount less than three dollars ($3), the funding
assigned to the projects and programs identified in subdivision (a) shall be adjusted
proportionately to account for reduced funding capacity. The authority shall adopt a
resolution detailing the updated Regional Measure 3 capital and operating funding
available and listing the revised funding amounts for each project within 90 days of
the certification of the election by the last county to certify the election on the toll
increase. The authority shall update this resolution as needed to reflect additional tolls
approved in subsequent elections.
(c) (1) Not more than 16 percent, up to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000), of the
revenues generated each year from the toll increase approved by the voters pursuant
to Section 30923 shall be made available annually for the purpose of providing
operating assistance as set forth in the authority's annual budget resolution for the
purposes listed in paragraph (2). The funds shall be made available to the provider
of the transit services subject to the performance measures described in paragraph
(3).
(2) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall annually fund the following
operating programs from the revenue generated each year from the toll increase
approved by the voters pursuant to Section 30923 as another component of the
Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan:
(A) The San Francisco Transbay Tenninal. Eight percent of the amount available
for operating assistance pursuant to paragraph (I), not to exceed five million dollars
($5,000,000). These funds are available for transportation-related costs associated
with operating the terminal. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority shall pursue other
long-term, dedicated operating revenue to fund its operating costs. To the extent that
a portion or all of the toll revenue provided pursuant to this subparagraph is not needed
in a given fiscal year, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall reduce the
allocation accordingly.
(B) (i) Expanded Ferry Service. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in the first year
of allocation, fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) in the second year of allocation,
twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) in the third year of allocation, and twenty-five
million dollars ($25,000,000) in the fourth year of allocation. These allocation amounts
shall be subject to the adjustments in subdivision (b). In the fifth year of allocation
and thereafter, 58 percent of the amount available for operating assistance pursuant
to paragraph (1), not to exceed thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000). These funds
shall be made available to the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) to support expanded ferry service, including
increased frequencies of existing routes and the operation of new routes.
(ii) To the extent that funds provided pursuant to clause (i) are not requested for
expenditure by WETA in a given year, the funds shall be held by the authority in a
reserve account. Those funds shall be made available to WETA for any capital or
operating purpose. Before receiving an allocation of those funds, WETA shall submit
a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission detailing how the funds
shall be used. An allocation of those funds shall constitute an augmentation of the
funding provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) and be treated as such in any
reports by the authority regarding the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan.
(C) Regional Express Bus. Thirty-four percent of the amount available for operating
assistance pursuant to paragraph (1), not to exceed twenty million dollars
($20,000,000), to be distributed for bus service in the bridge corridors, prioritizing
bus routes that carry the greatest number of transit riders. To the extent that a portion
or all of the toll revenue provided pursuant to this subparagraph is not needed in a
given fiscal year, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall reduce the
allocation accordingly.
(3) Before the allocation of revenue for transit operating assistance under
subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (2), the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission shall:
(A) Adopt perfonnance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership, or other
indicators, as appropriate. The performance measures shall be developed in consultation
with the affected project sponsors.
(B) Execute an operating agreement with the sponsor of the project. This agreement
shall include, but is not limited to, an operating plan that is consistent with the adopted
performance measures. The agreement shall include a schedule of projected fare
revenues or other forecast revenue and any other operating funding that will be
dedicated to the service or terminal. For any individual project sponsor, this operating
agreement may include additional requirements, as determined by the commission.
(C) In an operating agreement executed pursuant to subparagraph (B), the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall grant a project sponsor at least five
years to achieve the adopted performance measures. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission shall use a ridership forecast as the basis for performance measures
adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and to establish performance measures in
following years. If the transit service of a project sponsor does not achieve the
performance measures within the timeframe granted to the project sponsor, the project
sponsor shall notify the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission may revise the performance measures, extend the
timeframe to achieve the performance measures, or take action to reduce the funding
available for operations if the performance measures are not met within the new
time frame.
( 4) Before Metropolitan Transportation Commission providing funding to the San
Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) under
subdivision (a) or this subdivision, WETA and the MTC shall do the following, as
applicable:
(A) WETA shall adopt a plan that includes systemwide and route-specific
performance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership, and any other measures
as deemed appropriate by WETA in consultation with MTC.
(B) WETA and MTC shall execute an operating agreement that establishes a
five-year plan for new or enhanced services and outlines incremental steps needed to
achieve a reasonable level of service productivity and cost-effectiveness as compared
to similar ferry services provided across the bay area.
(C) After the time period identified in subparagraph (B), and if reasonable, but
incomplete progress has been achieved to meet the perfonnance measures identified
in subparagraph (A), WETA, in consultation with MTC, may propose a new timeframe,
not longer than an additional five years, to achieve the performance measures and
take needed steps to remedy the service to meet the measures. In the event that the
performance measures are not met within the new timeframe, WETA may seek
additional time to achieve the measures and MTC may determine whether services
should continue and may establish other conditions to service in consultation with
WETA. In all cases, funds not spent or made available to WETA shall be returned to
the reserve account established pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2).
(D) WETA shall use the plan identified in subparagraph (A) to prioritize the use
of capital funding made available by this section to support its mission as the operator
of ferry services.
(E) This section does not restrict WETA with respect to meeting its obligations as
the coordinating agency for water transit response to regional emergencies.
(d) (1) For all projects authorized under subdivision (a), the project sponsor shall
submit an initial project report to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission within
six months of the election approving the toll increase. This report shall include all
information required to describe the project in detail, including the status of any
environmental documents relevant to the project, additional funds required to fully
fund the project, the amount, if any, of funds expended to date, and a summary of
any impediments to the completion of the project. This report, or an updated report,
shall include a detailed financial plan and shall notify the commission if the project
sponsor will request toll revenue within the subsequent 12 months. The project sponsor
shall update this report as needed or requested by the commission. Funds shall not
be allocated by the commission for any project authorized by subdivision (a) until
the project sponsor submits the initial project report, and the report is reviewed and
approved by the commission.
(2) If multiple project sponsors are listed for projects listed in subdivision (a), the
commission shall identify a lead sponsor in coordination with all identified sponsors,
for purposes of allocating funds. For any projects authorized under subdivision (a),
the commission shall have the option of requiring a memorandum of understanding
between itself and the project sponsor or sponsors that shall include any specific
requirements that must be met before the allocation of funds provided under
subdivision (a).
( e) If a program or project identified in subdivision ( a) has cost savings after
completion, taking into account construction costs and an estimate of future settlement
claims, or cannot be completed or cannot continue due to delivery or financing
obstacles making the completion or continuation of the program or project unrealistic,
the commission shall consult with the program or project sponsor. After consulting
with the sponsor, the commission shall hold a public hearing concerning the program
or project. After the hearing, the commission may vote to modify the program or the
project's scope, decrease its level of funding, or reassign some or all of the funds to
another project within the same bridge corridor. If a program or project identified in
subdivision (a) is to be implemented with other funds not derived from tolls, the
commission shall follow the same consultation and hearing process described above
and may vote thereafter to reassign the funds to another project consistent with the
intent of this chapter.
(t) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30923, the authority
shall within 24 months of the election date include the projects in a long-range bridge
toll plan. The authority shall update its long-range plan as required to maintain its
viability as a strategic plan for funding projects authorized by this section. The
authority shall, by January 1, 2020, submit its updated long-range bridge toll plan to
the transportation policy committee of each house of the Legislature for review. This
subdivision, to the extent a plan is prepared under this section, supersedes the
requirement to prepare and submit a 20-year toll bridge expenditure plan to the
Legislature for adoption pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 30914.
(g) This section does not alter the obligations of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission with respect to the requirements of Section 65080 of the Government
Code.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 92, Sec. 207 . (SB 1289) Effective January 1, 2019.)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into as of this -? 7 day of
. --I _Oe, -loe,e/fe._;I , 2017, by and between the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and
Transportation District, a special district of the State of California, duly created and
acting under California Streets and Highways Code Section 27000 et seq ("District")
and the City of San Rafael, a California charter city ("City"), (collectively referred to as
the ("Parties").
RECITALS
A. The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District ("SMART") was created
pursuant to AB 2224 (California Public Utilities Code § 105000 et seq.) for the purpose
of providing a passenger rail service and multi-use pathway within the Counties of
Sonoma and Marin.
B. The SMART rail corridor, historically known as the Northwestern Pacific
Railroad, runs north to south in .Sonoma and Marin Counties, generally parallel to U.S .
Highway 101, including a segment running through Downtown San Rafael between
Hetherton Street and Tamalpais Avenue.
C. SMART has commenced passenger rail operations between the City of
Santa Rosa and the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station, located in the block
encompassed by Third Street, Hetherton Street, Fourth Street, and Tamalpais Avenue .
D. Adjacent to the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station to the south,
District owns and operates the C. Paul Bettini Transportation Center, also commonly
known as the San Rafael Transit Center ('Transit Center"), situated in the block
encompassed by Second Street, Hetherton Street, Third Street, and Tamalpais Avenue .
The SMART rail corridor runs north to south directly through the the Transit Center, and
crosses Second and Third Streets.
E . The Transit Center is the main passenger transit terminal for Marin
County, providing essential transit services to over 9,000 customers daily and facilitating
travel and transfers throughout Marin County, to San Francisco, Contra Costa, and
Sonoma Counties. The Transit Center accommodates transportation services provided
by the District, Marin Transit, Sonoma County Transit, Greyhound Bus Lines, the Marin
Airporter and the Sonoma Airporter. The continued and efficient operation of the Transit
Center is a crucial concern of District and the other transportation service providers
operating there, and of their customers.
F. The streets surrounding the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station and
the Transit Center are among the busiest streets in the City of San Rafael. Second
Street and Third Street are the City's main east-west traffic corridors south of Puerto
Suello Hill, providing a primary access between Highway 101 and West Marin, Fairfr,1x,
and San Anselmo as well as to Downtown San Rafael. The offramp from Highway 101
South into Downtown San Rafael feeds directly into Hetherton Street, which, four blocks
farther south, feeds directly into the onramp to Highway 101 South from Downtown San
Rafael. The smooth and efficient flow of traffic in this area is a vital concern to the City
of San Rafael and its residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as to the transit
operators whose buses use the City's streets, and transit passengers.
G. SMART is also proceeding with the design and construction of the
improvements needed to extend its passenger rail service system the 2.2 miles from
the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station to a location near the District's Larkspur
Ferry Terminal in Larkspur (the "SMART Larkspur Extension Project").
H. Because the SMART rail corridor in San Rafael runs through the Transit
Center, the SMART Larkspur Extension Project will require replacement of the Transit
Center and its transit operations to an existing and/or new site in downtown San Rafael.
The City and the District have cooperated to develop several options for the
replacement Transit Center, more specifically identified in the March 2017 San Rafael
Transit Center Relocation Study Final Report, all of which are within close proximity of
the current Transit Center and the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station; and the
District, as lead agency, will soon be undertaking the environmental analysis and design
for the permanent replacement facility.
I. The District has worked with the City, SMART, and other transit agencies to
design an "Interim Transit Center'' for transit operations. The Interim Transit Center will
be designed and constructed by SMART in association with its construction of the
SMART Larkspur Extension Project. It will serve -as the main passenger transit terminal
in Marin County until such time as the permanent replacement of the Transit Center is
constructed and occupied.
J. The City and District desire to memorialize herein their intention and
agreements for cooperating on the environmental review, planning and approval of the
Transit Center Replacement Project (hereafter, the "Project").
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the District agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. The District shall be the lead agency for purposes of environmental review
of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
2. The City shall be a responsible agency for purposes of environmental
review of the Project under CEQA.
3. The District and the City shall cooperate to develop and consider, to the
extent feasible, an additional alternative for the replacement Transit Center, besides
those identified in the March 2017 Report.
4. In planning and developing specific Project features, the District shall meet
and confer with the City's Community Development Department staff concerning
consistency of the proposed Project with the City's General Plan, Station Area Plan, and
Zoning Ordinance.
5. The parties agree that the selected alternative must be approved by the
City Council.
6. In consideration of the obligations undertaken by District herein, City shall
waive standard application and hearing fees for City review of the Project, and shall
streamline any District applications, as applicable, to the City for work required in or
affecting the public right-of-way or other public property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day,
month and year first above written.
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
By:
M:
By: L-
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
By:
ATTEST:
By:
l::sther Beirne, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
San Rafael Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
c/o City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
April 13, 2021
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Recommendations regarding Site Alternatives for San Rafael Transit Center’s Relocation
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
San Rafael completed and adopted its most recent update of San Rafael’s Bicycle Pedestrian
Master Plan (BPMP) in 2018. During that planning process, the City considered hundreds of
comments through its survey and public outreach efforts. The relocation of San Rafael’s Transit
Center creates an important opportunity for the City to address the top two goals in the 2018
BPMP: 1) safety and 2) connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Safety
According to the BPMP, between 2009 and 2016, 65% of all pedestrian-involved collisions
(averaging 36/year) occurred downtown. The corridors with the greatest occurrence of both
bicycle and pedestrian-involved collisions per mile were along Second, Third, and Fourth Streets
and collisions were particularly high at intersections with Hetherton Street and Tamalpais
Avenue. As these intersections are within the footprints of the alternatives being considered for
the relocation of the Transit Center, this is a critical time to prioritize and invest in safety
countermeasures at pedestrian crossings and bicycle intersections such as those listed in the
BPMP and to work with the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD)
to do so.
The BPMP recognizes that tracking progress towards its goals is crucial to its success. One of the
first strategies in prioritizing and implementing the safety improvements in the plan was to
adopt a “Vision Zero” policy for eliminating all bicycle- and pedestrian-involved severe injuries
and fatalities and establish a baseline for comparison by 2020. As this milestone has not yet
been accomplished, now would be a good time to prioritize it especially in this area.
In keeping with the intent of the BPMP, the future location and circulation pattern around the
transit center should maximize protection of pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicle traffic.
Project elements that would support the BPMP include consideration of provision of barriers
----
between bikeways and vehicle lanes, protected-permissive signal phasing, and adequately sized
boarding areas to minimize conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.
Connectivity
According to the 2018 BPMP, some of Marin Transit’s most heavily used bus routes are in the
Canal neighborhood. Creating direct bike and pedestrian routes to stops along those routes,
including to the Transit Center, will help improve access for high-frequency bus system users.
Part of prioritizing safety could be to develop a “Safe Routes to Transit” approach for all ages
and abilities to the new Transit Center location.
In its very first BPMP, adopted in 2001, the City identified the need for N-S bicycle routes. The
2011 BPMP update called for a series of projects identifying the need for the North-South
Greenway through San Rafael. The 2018 BPMP identified gaps that exist in the bike network
downtown and at connections to the existing Transit Center and rated the segment between
Second Street and Mission Avenue along West Tamalpais one of its highest priority projects.
That is to say that over the past 20 years, completion of a North-South Greenway through
downtown has been a priority in all BPMP plans. Significant segments towards this goal have
been completed, the most recent being the multiuse path along West Francisco from Irwin to
Second Street. The Transit Center relocation creates an opportunity for ultimately completing
the connection from Second Street to Mission Avenue. Also, importantly, improving regional
bicycle and pedestrian networks is included in the first policy in San Rafael’s Draft 2040 General
Plan update Mobility Element.
In our advisory capacity, we urge you to use this opportunity to work with GGBHTD to create a
safer and more connected downtown, identifying safe pathways to transit for all users,
prioritizing safe intersections, and completing the North-South Greenway from Second Street to
Mission Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Kate Powers
Chair, San Rafael BPAC
獲瀾E AG
Ap「= 14, 2021
UE oFWOMEN VOTERSへ
Honorable Mayor and San Rafael City CounciI Members
Dear Mayor Kate CoIin and Members ofSan RafaeI City Counc正
We understand thatyou are scheduIed to hear a presentation from Golden Gate Bridge,
Highway and Transportation Dist「ict (GGBHTD〉 staff on the status ofthe San RafaeI Transit
Center Project at the Apr旧9 San Rafaei City Council meeting. The District plans to issue its
Draft EiR repo両n 」une ofthisyear, Which w帖ncIude a preferred site. Becausethis is a p「oject
that w帖mpact San Rafael and serve Marin transit users for many years to come, We enCOurage
the City to work cIosely with GGBHTD officiais to agree on a preferred site prior to the reiease
Ofthe Draft EIR.
The COVID-19 virus had a devastating effect on transit systems and their riders. Transit o冊cials
PrOject that it w川take many years to restore ridership to leveIs that existed before the virus.
However, in areas where transit serves those without viabie aIternatives, the ridership rate is
expected to retum sooner and even increase. Prior to COViD-19, the San RafaeI Transit Center
WaS One Ofbusiesttransit centers in the BayArea serving 9,000 riders a day. A large percentage
Ofthe users were from the Canal Neighborhood.
丁he District′s three location options include the Under the Freeway AIternative, the 4th street
Gateway Altemative and the Whistiestop BIock AIternative.
We be=eve the iocatjon ofthe new Transit Center shouId
a. Serve as a centrai hubfortransit users, and be safe, COmfortable, and attractive;
b. Be designed with good vehicie traffic circulation, both fortransit-related vehicIes
entering and leaving the site, Vehicles dropping off users at the site, and vehicIes
traveiing near the site;
C" Be designed to be responsive and adaptableto sea level rise, in keepingwith State and
Iocal sea IeveI rise projections and in acco「dance with the planned Iife expectancy ofthe
infrast「ucture;
4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-133, San Rafae1 94903
Phone: 415一与07-0824 Website: marinIwv.org Ema出Iwvmc@mariniwv.org
d. Be designed to incorpo「ate energy conservation measures such as soIar paneIs and
eIectric charging stations for e-bicycIes;
e. Be Iocated to minimize da=gerOuS Pedestrian crossings ofhighlytra靴ked major
StreetS;
f. Be morethanjust a repIacement ofthe existingTransit Center巾Shouid be something
better with pIacemaking design;
g. Be designed asthe gatewayto San Rafaei,s Downtown Area;
h・ Be integrated with San Rafael Station Area Pian components;
i. Be designed to accommodate future expansion and innovations in modes oftravel;
j. 1ncIude areas large enough to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycie access;
k・ Provideforadequate ′′Kiss and Ride一一drop-O什and pick-uP areaS.
The Underthe Freeway AIternative
We beiieve the Underthe FreewaY Altemative does not meet these objectives. Furthermore,
We are CO=Cemed that this option′ being the least desirabIe ofthe three, W川negativeiy impact
the many minoritytransit users who live in the Canai Neighborhood and usetheTransit Center.
The site wouId be a more dangerous and Iess comfortabIe station forthe low-income peop-e
Who arethe predominate users ofpublictransit- This may result in groundsfora TitieVi lawsuit
by transit and equity advocates.
Additionaliy′ We have environmental concems about having to coverthe creek in that area,
Which wouId resuit in the loss ofcreek habitat. AIso, t「anSit users goingto orfrom the SMART
Station wouId have to waIk across a busy Hetherton Street.
This p「operty wouId remain underthe controI of Caltrans who could request Golden Gate
Transit to vacate the site′ neCeSSitatjng another search for a new site. ShouId this happen, it
WOuId be likeIYthatthe sites in the area avaiiabie nowwouId have been deveIoped for other
uses′ and the Transit Center buses wouId need to be reIocated to City streets which wouId
resuIt in significant impact on City tra冊c.
Finaily, PIacing the Transit Center at the site is considerably more expensive, With a projected
$60-;85 m冊on cost compared to the ;40-;与与m冊on cost for the two othe「 aIte「native sites,
The 4th street AItemative
The 4th Street Gateway Aitemative also does not meet the above objectives. 1t wouId take up
two City bIocks bordered by Hetherton Street, Third Street, Tamaipais Ave, and Fifth Avenue
and prohibit right tums from Hetherton Street to Fourth Street, Which is a major concem ofthe
San Rafaei business communitY. Passengers would have to cross Fourth Street to make some
transfers. Finaliy, this AItemative wouId ut旧ze an extra City biock that could be used for other
PurPOSeS.
4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-133, San Rafaei 94903
Phone: 41与-507-0824 Website: marinlwv.org Ema吊Iwvmc@marinIwv.org
The WhistIestop BIock Aitemative
We be=eve the WhistIestop BIock AIternative provides the most flexibiIity in serving the needs
Oftransit users while integrating the Transit Center with Downtown, lt best meets the
Objectivesthatwe have laid out. 1t pIacestheT「ansit Center on one block in an open and safe
area. Passengers do not have to cross any street to make transfers. The use ofthe Whistlestop
building creates a pedestrian-friendiy information and retail center.
We recommend that the City work with GGBH丁D staffto adopt a pubiic review design process
in which San Rafael citizens and Transit Center users w川be abIeto provide input on things such
as pIacemaking and pub=c art. Thiswould occurafterthe Project EIR is approved and the
Transit Center site chosen.
丁he League ofWomen Voters ofMarin wiii continueto monitorand provide input on this
important project.
Sincereiy,
冒登園圏
Ann Wakeley
President
CC:
Marin County Board ofSupervisors
Patty Garbarino. Board Member GGBHTD
Alice Fredericks, Board Member GGBH丁D
Denis Muiligan, General Manager- GGBHTD
Ron Downing, Planning Director, GGBHTD
Raymond Santiago, Project Manager, GGBHTD
」im Schutz, San Rafaei City Manager
Nancy WheIan, General Manager- Marin Transit
Robert Betts, Marin Transit, Director of Operations and PIanning
Am Richman′ Executive Director, Transportation Authority of Marin
4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-133, San RafaeI 94903
Phone: 41うー与07-0824 Website: marinlwv,Org EmaiI: lwvmc@marinIwv.o「g