ta strategic plan 2009-2013 final

8/7/2019 TA Strategic Plan 2009-2013 Final

1/48

S T R A T E G I C P L

2009-201


2/48

BoardofDirectors

RosanneFoust, Chair

Representing South County Cities

Redwood City

RosalieOMahony, Vice Chair

Representing Central County Cities

Burlingame

Mark Church

Representing San Mateo County

Board of Supervisors

RichGordon

Representing San Mateo County

Board of Supervisors

JohnLee

Representing Cities-at-Large

San Mateo

KarylMatsumotoRepresenting SamTrans Board

South San Francisco

Jim Vreeland

Representing Northern County Cities

Pac ifica

ExecutiveStaff

ExecutiveDirector

Michae l J. Scanlon

Chief AdministrativeOfficer

George Cameron

ChiefFinancialOfficer

Gigi Harrington

ChiefOperatingOfficer

Chuck Harvey

Chief Communications Officer

Rita Haskin

ChiefDevelopmentOfficer

Ian McAvoy

Special Ass istanttotheGeneralManager/CEO

Mark Simon

Authority Secretary

Martha Martinez

General Counsel

Hanson BridgettDavid MillerJoan Cassman


3/48

TA STRATEGIC PLAN 2009-2013

Tableof Contents

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................. 4

2.0 1988 Measure A Program................................................................................ 6

3.0 2009 2033 Measure A Program...................................................................... 10

3.1 2004 Expenditure Plan Goals ....................................................................................................... 103.2 Program Category Descriptions .............................................................................................. 10-16

4.0 PlanningProcess ......................................................................................... 18

4.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Public Outreach....................................................................................................................... 18-19

5.0 Programmingand Allocations Guidelines ............................................................22

5.1 Participants and Responsibili ties ................................................................................................. 225.2 Non-competitive Programs and Projec ts ................................................................................ 23-245.3 Competitive Programs ............................................................................................................ 24-27

6.0 FundManagement........................................................................................30

6.1 Measure A CIP and Funding Cycles.............................................................................................. 306.2 Matching Funds ...................................................................................................................... 30-326.3 Spec ial Circumstances for Advancing Funds................................................................................ 32

7.0 NextSteps ..................................................................................................34

APPENDICES

A. Public Outreach Comments ...................................................................................................... 36-41B. Draft Strategic Plan Comments................................................................................................. 42-43


4/48


5/48

CHAPTER 1

Introduction



6/48


4

1.0 Introduction

In 1988, San Mateo County voters approved Measure A,a 20 year half-cent sales tax to fund and leverageaddi-tionalfunding for transportation projects and programsin San Mateo County. Theapproval of Measure Aalso created the San Mateo County TransportationAuthority (TA) to manageand administer the sales taxrevenues generated.

The TA is governed by a seven-member Board ofDirectors,and rece ives inputfrom a volunteer CitizensAdvisory Committee (CAC). The Board of Directors setsthe overall policy direction for the TA and is composedof:two Board members (appointed by thecounty Boardof Supervisors);four Board members representing the

North Coun

ty,Cen

tra

l County,Sou

th Coun

tyand

cities-at-large (appointed by the Cities Selection Committee);

and one Board member (appointed by the San MateoCounty Transit District). The CAC, which serves as aliaison between the publicand the Board of Directors,is composed of 15 representatives from varioussegments ofthecommunity.

Over thelast 20 years, Measure A has generated approxi-mately $1.2 billion in local revenueand other earningsand an additional $1.2 billion in stateand federal dollars.San Mateo County is one of 19 self-helpcounties inCaliforniathatchoseto tax itselfin order to fulfillthe

countys transportation needs. As a self-help county,the TA has been ableto acceleratethecompletion ofmajor projects by bridging funding gaps,leveragingother fund sources,and providing 100 percent of projectfunding, where necessary. After 20 years offinancingnoteworthy projects,the 1988 sales tax measure willexpire December 31, 2008.

In 2004, 75.3 percent ofthe San Mateo Countyelectorate reauthorized the Measure A program,including a Transportation Expenditure Plan,for anadditional 25 years (2009 2033). The programs,identified by thecities,localagencies and citizens of

San Mateo County,includeall modes oftransportationand address both currentand anticipated congestionneeds in San Mateo County.

The 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan requiresthe TA to develop a Strategic Plan by December 31, 2008that will be updated every five years,ata minimum.This documentis the Strategic Plan which provides apolicy frameworkfor guiding programming and allocatiodecisions within the structureestablished by the 2004Expenditure Plan. Itis essentialto emphasizethatthisplan is aliving documentthat willcontinueto evolveas the TA implements the Measure A program.

The Strategic Plan is organized into thefollowing section

Section 1 provides anintroductiontothe TA,the 1988 andthe 2004 Measure A Programs andtheStrategicPlan

Section 2 provides informationaboutthe 1988Measure A Programandaccomplishments

Section 3 provides informationaboutthe2004 ExpenditurePlan

Section 4 describes theplanningprocessforpreparingtheStrategicPlan

Section 5 describes thepolicy frameworkforguidingprogrammingandallocationdecisions

Section 6 outlines fundmanagementguidelines

Section 7 outlines next steps


7/48

CHAPTER 2

1988Measure AProgram



8/48


6

Figure 1. 1988Measure A ExpenditurePlan

2.0 1988 Measure A Program

The 1988 adoption ofthe Measure A half-cent sales tax

in San Mateo Coun

ty was dedica

ted

to genera

ting localrevenuefor transportation projects and services. When

the program expires attheend of 2008,itis estimatedthatit will have broughtin $1.2 billion in local sales-taxdollars and other earnings and an additional $1.2 billionin leveraged stateand federal dollars,for a $2.4 billioninvestmentin transportation infrastructure.

Caltrain improvements were deemed the number onepriority ofthe 1988 Expenditure Plan. Ofthe generatedrevenues,approximately 46 percent were slated for thetransit program which included Caltrain Improvements,Grade Separations and Dumbarton Rail Corridor.Another 29 percent was designated for Streets andHighways, 20 percentfor the Local Entities, 3 percentfor Paratransitand 0.71 percentfor TransportationSystem Managementand Bicycles.

Significant strides have been made with thefirst generation ofthe Measure A program. Most notably, MeasureA revenues contributed to the Caltrain right of waypurchasein 1991 and $14 million for the purchase ofthe

Dumbarton righ

to

fway. This proved

to be one o

fthemostforward thinking long-term strategies for preserv-

ing transportation infrastructurein that,today, right ofway purchases areextremely difficultand expensivetosecure. Measure A also provided funding for Caltrainoperationalimprovements such as theconstructionof passing tracks and new signaland control systemsto improve service reliability and station and parkingimprovements in San Bruno, Belmont, San Carlos,Redwood City, Menlo Park,and San Mateo to improvesafety,customer serviceand satisfaction. To improvesafety and reducelocaltrafficcongestion, $148 millionwas allocated for theconstruction of nine grade separa-

tion projects which have been completed in South SanFrancisco, Millbrae, Belmont, San Carlos,and RedwoodCity to improve safety and reducelocaltrafficconges-tion. Approximately $500 million has been expended fohighway improvements such as auxiliary lanes through-outthe Highway 101 corridor, Highway 92 improve-ments,and the Highway 101/Oyster Point Interchangein South San Francisco to improve safety and reducefreeway congestion. Atalocallevel,approximately$196 million was passed to localcities and thecountyfor local streetand road improvements. To supplementfixed-route operations and providealternatives to drivininvestments also have been madeto fund local shuttles

paratransitand bicycle route planning.

46.1% Transit

29.3% Streets and Highways

20.0% Loca l Entities

3.1% Paratransit

0.8% Administration

0.7% Transportation System Management

.01% Bicycle


9/48


By December 31, 2008, when the 1988 Measure AProgram willexpire,the TA will haveexpended 61 percentofthetotalestimated sales tax revenues and other earn-ings on San Mateo County transportation improvements.Prior to theexpiration ofthe 1988 Measure A Program,the TA Board of Directors willtakeaction on the program-ming ofallestimated remaining sales tax funds to

projects/programs in the 1988 Measure A Programthat havecommenced. It should be noted thatthedelivery of 1988 Measure A funded projects willcontinue beyond theexpiration ofthe 1988 Measure AProgram,in keeping with thecommitmentto the voterswho approved the 1988 Measure A Program.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

Mi

l

l

i

ons

Fiscal Year

Mi

l

l

i

ons

Fiscal Year

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08*

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008*

*2008 datais based on projec tions

Table 1. 1988 Measure A Revenue

Table 2. 1988 Measure A Expenditures


10/48


11/48

CHAPTER 3

2009-2033

Measure AProgram



12/48


10

On January 1, 2009,the 2009 2033 Measure A

Program willcommence,continuing

the genera

tion o

fsales tax revenues in San Mateo County for transporta-

tion facilities, services and programs. The voter-approvedExpenditure Plan sets the program categories andpercentage split ofthe sales tax revenues to each ofthe program categories described below. Additionally,the guidelines and requirements contained in theExpenditure Plan are highlighted in this section.

3.1 2004 ExpenditurePlanGoals

The goals ofthe 2004 Expenditure Plan Program are:

Reducecommutecorridorcongestion

Makeregionalconnections

Enhance safety

Meetlocalmobility needs

Meeting these goals involves investmentin multipletransportation modes.Funding is identified for sixprimary program categories: Transit, Highways, LocalStreets/Transportation, Grade Separations, Pedestrianand Bicycle,and Alternative Congestion Relief programs.Each category is designated for a percentage shareofthetotal projected revenues which arecurrentlyestimated at $1.5 billion (in 2004 dollars) over thelife

ofthe Measure A Program,as illustrated in Figure 2 .

The 2004 Expenditure Plan outlines restrictions in theuse of Measure A funds to targetfunding to transporta-tion projects in San Mateo County and maximizetheleveraging of other funding. The restrictions include:

Measure A funds may notbeusedtoreplaceorsupplantexistingfunds andresources onprojects

Measure A funds may only beusedfortransportationfacilities and services

Measure A funds may only beusedforprojects withinSanMateo County, withexceptiontothe systemwide

costs for Caltrain Improvements,andforHighwayprojects thatminimally extendintoadjacentcounties

3.2 Program Category Details

The Measure A Program includes six programs:

Transit, Highways, Local Streets/Transportation, GradeSeparations, Pedestrian and Bicycle,and AlternativeCongestion Relief programs.Funding can be used forplanning, design development,construction projectsor operations in San Mateo County.

Table 3 lists thetotalestimated sales tax revenueover thelife ofthe measurefor each program categoryand matching funds from potentialloca l, stateandfederal sources.

The definition and purpose ofeach program areaaredescribed in thefollowing paragraphs. Also indicated

for each program area,ifapplicable,arekey parametersidentified in the 2004 Expenditure Plan.

Figure 2. 2004 ExpenditurePlan

3.0 2009 2033 Measure A Program

30.0% Transit

27.5% Highways

22.5% Loca l Streets & Transportation

15.0% Grade Separation

3.0% Pedestrian & Bicycle

1.0% Administration

1.0% Alternative Congestion Relief


13/48

Program Category %ShareEstimatedSales Tax(in 2004 dollars)

EstimatedMatch(in 2004 dollars)

Transit(30%)

Caltrain 16.0% $240.0 million $250 million

Loca l Shutt les 4.0% $60.0 million $60 million

Accessible Services 4.0% $60.0 million $228 million

Ferry 2.0% $30.0 million $92 million

Dumbarton Corridor 2.0% $30.0 million $415 million

BART 2.0% $30.0 million $120 million

Highways (27.5%)

Key Congested Areas 17.3% $260.0 million $260 million

Supplemental 10.2% $153.0 million $65 million

LocalStreets /Transportation 22.5% $337.5 million $527 million

GradeSeparations 15.0% $225.0 million $125 million

Pedestrianand Bicycle 3.0% $45.0 million $25 million

Alternative CongestionReliefPrograms 1.0% $15.0 million $15 million

TOTAL 100.0%* $1,500million* $2,200million*

*Note: Includes up to 1% for Program Administration


Transit

The Transit Program provides funding for multiplemodes oftransitincluding Caltrain, Local Shutt les,Accessible Services,Ferry,the Dumbarton Corridorand BART.

Caltrain

Caltrain is a 77-mile, 32 station commuter rail systemthat provides servicein thecounties of San Francisco,San Mateo and Santa Clara. Caltrain operates 98weekday trains with less frequent service on week-ends, serving nearly 12 million customers a year.The purpose ofthe Caltrain program is to fund systemupgrades and serviceexpansions. Up to 50 percent

ofthefunding can be used for operating expenses.

LocalShuttle

Local shutt le services aretransit shuttle servicesprovided with vehicles thataretypically larger than vansand smaller than buses. The purpose ofthe Local Shutt leprogram is to meetlocal mobility needs and provideaccess to regionaltransit. These services areenvisionedto complementfixed-route bus and rail services.

AccessibleServices

Accessible Services aretargeted for paratransitandother transportation services to accommodate peoplewith disabilities, seniors with mobility limitations,andthose who need assistance using theexisting transporta-tion services. The purpose ofthe Accessible Services

program isto

fund Americans wi

th Disabili

ties Ac

t(ADA) paratransit services, such as Redi-Wheels,and

supportthe operating and capital needs ofadditional new

Table 3. Transportation ExpenditurePlanProgram Categories


14/48


12

programs for eligible seniors and people with disabilities.

The ADA requirestransi

tagencies

to provideaccessibleservices to people who are unableto usefixed-route

bus or rail service.

Ferry

Ferries providetransit service via waterways. The purposeoftheFerry program is to investin cost-effectiveferryservices in San Mateo County, wherecurrently,thereis no ferry service. These services willincreasetransitoptions to meet daily transportation needs and alsoprovidecountywidetransportation relief (and transportofemergency personnel) during times ofemergencies.These services will be operated by the San Francisco Bay

Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA),a regionaltransportation agency created by the CaliforniaLegislatureto develop ferry transitand waterborneemer-gency response services for the San Francisco Bay Area.Two ferry projects, onein Redwood City and the otherin South San Francisco, have been identified in the 2004Expenditure Plan and arethetwo projects thatareeligibleto befunded by this program.

DumbartonCorridor

The Dumbarton Corridor, which connects the Peninsulato the East Bay, has been identified as akey corridorfor futurecommuter rail service. This corridor provides

acriticalcomponent ofestablishing a regional railnetworkas identified in the Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) Regional Rail Plan. Building on theinvestment of purchasing the Dumbarton Corridorright of way with funding from the 1988 Measure AProgram,the purpose ofthis program is to fund stationfacilities and railcorridor enhancements in East Palo Alto,Menlo Parkand Redwood City.

The Dumbarton commuter rail project, which is over-

seen bythe Dumbar

ton Rail Corridor Policy AdvisoryCommittee (DRCPAC) and project managed by Caltrain,

is currently at 10 percent design and in theenvironmentclearance phase. Oncethesetasks arecomplete,theDRCPAC willfocus on solidifying thefunding plan beforedefining specific projects to befunded by this program.

Bay AreaRapidTransitDistrict(BART)

BART is a heavy rail system that operates throughoutthecounties of San Francisco, San Mateo, AlamedaandContra Costa. BART serves morethan 362,000 riderson atypica l weekday on its network of 104 miles and43 stations. The purpose ofthis program is to fund capi

talinvestments and operating expenditures associatedwith the San Mateo County BART extension, which wascompleted in 2003.

As outlined in an agreement between BART, SamTransand the TA, 2 percent of Measure A sales tax revenueswill beallocated to BART on an annual basis to funda portion ofthe BART operating costs in San MateoCounty. Within the general guidelines ofthe Measure AProgram, specific projects to befunded by this programareto be defined by BART consistent with and within theparameters oftheagreement between BART, SamTransand the TA.

Highways

The purpose ofthis program is to reducecongestionon roadways within San Mateo County. This programis divided into two categories: Key Congested Areasarefocused on removing bottlenecks in the mostcongested highway commutecorridors;andSupplemental Roadways arefocused on reducingcongestion and improving throughputalong secondarycommutecorridors.


15/48


Key CongestedAreas

The

2004 Expendi

tur

ePl

an

allo

catesa

spec

ifie

damoun

tof sales tax revenueto fivekey congested corridors

in San Mateo County. Below is thelist ofeligible projectsas identified in the 2004 Expenditure Plan:

Highway 280 North Improvements

Reconstruct I-280/Route1 Interchange(Daly City)

Construct Auxiliary Lanes between I-380and Hickey Boulevard (Daly City,South SanFrancisco, San Bruno)

CoastsideHighway Improvements

Route1/San Pedro CreekBridgeReplacement (Pacifica)

Route1/Manor Driveovercrossingimprovementand widening (Pacifica)

Route1 and 92 safetyand operationalimprovements(withinandintheproximity of HalfMoon Bay)

Highway 92 Improvements

Auxiliarylanesandinterchangeimprovementsbetween I-280andtheSan Mateo Hayward Bridge(San Mateo County,Foster City)

Highway 101 Mid-county Improvements

Rec

onstru

ction o

fthe

Highway 101-Bro

adw

ay

Interchange (Burlingame)

Modification oftheHighway 101/PeninsulaAvenueInterchange (San Mateo, Burlingame)

Operationalimprovements on Highway 101from Hillsdaleto Route92 (San Mateo)

Highway 101 South Improvements

ReconstructtheHighway 101/WoodsideRoadInterchange (Redwood City)

Highway 101 improvements between Highway 84andtheSantaClaraCountylineandaccessimprovementstotheDumbarton Bridge (Redwood City, Menlo Park,EastPalo Alto)

SupplementalRoadways

The

2004 Expendi

tur

ePl

an in

clud

esa

partia

llisto

fspecific projects eligibleto rece ive Measure A funding.

Other projects (notlisted in the plan) can beconsidered.Below is the partiallist ofcandidate projects as identifiedin the 2004 Expenditure Plan:

Route 35 (I-280-SneathLane) widening(San Bruno)

US 101/Produce Avenue Interchange(SouthSanFrancisco)

Route 92 (I-280/Route 35)truckclimbinglane(SanMateo)

Willow Roadadaptive signalcontrol system(MenloPark)

US 101 (SierraPointParkway SF/SM County Line)auxiliary lanes (SouthSanFrancisco, Brisbane)

Geneva Avenueextension(Daly City, Brisbane)

I-280/JohnDaly BoulevardOvercrossing(north side)widening(San Bruno)

JuniperoSerra Boulevard Improvements (Daly City,Colma,SouthSanFrancisco)

US 101/CandlestickPoint Interchange(Brisbane)

US 101 (SierraPointParkway San Bruno Avenue)auxiliary lanes (Brisbane,SouthSanFrancisco)

I-280/I-380 localaccess improvement(San Bruno)

Highway 101/SierraPointPkwy InterchangereplacementandLagoonWay extension(Brisbane)

TritonDrive widening(Foster City)

SandHillRoad signalcoordination (MenloPark)

WoodsideRoad widening(US 101-El CaminoReal)(Redwood City)


16/48

LocalJurisdiction

Allocation(%)EstimatedFunding($2004)

Atherton 1.886 $ 6,365,250

Belmont 3.543 $ 11,957,625

Brisbane 0.818 $ 2,760,750

Burlingame 4.206 $ 14,195,250

Colma 0.299 $ 1,009 ,125

Daly City 10.413 $ 35,143,875

East Palo Alto 3.215 $ 10,850,625

Foster City 3.364 $ 11,353,500

Half Moon Bay 1.596 $ 5,386,500

Hillsborough 3.000 $ 10,125,000

Menlo Park 4.851 $ 16,372,125

Millbrae 2.917 $ 9,844 ,875

Pac ifica 5.174 $ 17,462 ,250

Por tola Valley 1.488 $ 5,022,000

Redwood City 9.612 $ 32,440 ,500

San Bruno 5.034 $ 16,989,750San Carlos 4.271 $ 14,414,625

San Mateo 11.797 $ 39,814,975

S. San Francisco 7.949 $ 25,815,375

Woodside 1.683 $ 5,680 ,125

San Mateo Co. 13.184 $ 44,496,000


14

LocalStreets and Transportation

The purpose ofthis program is to providefunding to the20 cities and the County of San Mateo for theimprove-mentand maintenance oflocaltransportation facilitiesand services. This program provides money to loca ljurisdictions based on thefollowing formula: 50 percentby population and 50 percent by the number of roadmiles within thejurisdiction. Annually,the TA will updatethe road miles and population figures based on CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation and Department ofFinancedata. Table 4 below summarizes theestimated allocationand funding over the next 25 years (in 2004 dollars).

GradeSeparation

The Grade Separation program involves eliminatingat-grade railroad crossings. This can be done by raisingor lowering roads and/or train tracks at differenteleva-tions. The purpose ofthis program is to providefundingfor theconstruction or upgrade of grade separationsalong the Caltrain and Dumbarton raillines in San MateoCounty to improve safety and relievelocaltrafficcongestion. The railcrossings to beconsidered forMeasure A funding arelisted in the 2004 ExpenditurePlan and arelocated in thecities of South San FranciscoSan Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, RedwoodCity, Atherton, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park.

Pedestrianand Bicycles

Bicycling and walking are sustainableforms oftranspor-tation. The purpose ofthis program is to fund specificprojects to encourageand improve bicycling and walk-ing conditions. Qualified expenditures include paths,trails and bridges over roads and highways. The 2004Expenditure Plan includes a partiallist ofeligible bicycleand pedestrian projects which arelisted below. Otherprojects will beconsidered.

Route 1/SantaRosa AvenuePedestrianOvercrossing(Pacifica)

Route 1 pedestrian/biketrailfromMontarathroughHalfMoon Bay (SanMateo County,HalfMoon Bay)

Route 35/Route 1 pedestrian/bikeovercrossing(Daly City)

Millbrae Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bikeovercrossing(Millbrae)

Hillcrest Boulevard/US 101 pedestrian/bikeovercrossingto Bay Trail(Millbrae)

US 101 nearHillsdale Boulevardpedestrian/bikeovercrossing(SanMateo)

Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bikeovercrossing(Belmont)

Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway pedestrian/biketunnelupgrade(MenloPark)

Willow Road/US 101 pedestrian/bikeovercrossing(MenloPark)

PortolaRoadpedestrian/bikepathpaving(SanMateo County)

Table 4. Estimated AnnualDistributionto

SanMateo County and Cities


17/48


Alternative CongestionRelief

The Alternative Congestion Relief program promotestransitand non-traditional methods ofcommuting toreduce reliance on theautomobileand use of IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS) to promoteefficient useofthetransportation network. Commutealternativesrece ive 0.8 and ITS projects rece ive 0.2 percent oftheAlternative Congestion Relieffunds. Example projectsincludecarpool services,transit subsidies,car shar-ing and telecommuting. The program also utilizesinformation technology to assistin efficient use ofthetransportation network. Example projects includetraveltime signage on highways,acc identalerts and reroutinginformation. This program is essentialin completing

a multimodal program to maximizetransportationoptions and efficiencies.


18/48

Program Category Description PurposeProjectParameters

Transit

Caltrain Ex isting commuter railsystem providing trainserv ice in San Francisco,San Mateo and Santa ClaraCounties

Upgradeand expand Caltrainserv ices in San Mateo County;Fund systemwideimprovementsand safety

Up to 50% fundingfor operations

Loca l Shut tles Transit serv ices providedwith vehicles thataretypica lly larger than vans andsmaller than buses

Mee tloca l mobili ty needs andprovideaccess to regionaltransit

n/a

Acc essibleServ ices

Targeted transportationserv ices for peoplethat have

spec ial mobili ty needs

Provide paratransitand othertransportation serv ices to eligible

seniors and people with disabili ties

n/a

Ferry Transit serv ice provided byvessels on waterways

Establish ferry serv ices in San MateoCounty

For serv ices inRedwood City andSouth San Francisc

Dumbar tonCorridor

A key corridor connec tingthe East Bay with thePeninsulaidentified for futurecommuter rail serv ice

Construct stations and railenhancements in East Palo Alto,Menlo Parkand Redwood City

n/a

BART Existing heavy rail systemproviding train serv ices inSan Francisco, San Mateo,Alamedaand Contra CostaCounties

Maintain and operate BARTextension to San Mateo County

Projec ts to beprogrammed byBART

Highways

KeyCongestedAreas

Highways in San MateoCounty

Reduce congestion and increasethroughput on highways

Projec ts to beselec ted fromeligible projec tlist

Supplemental Loca l,collec tor,arterial,state route roadways in SanMateo County

Reduce congestion and increasethroughput on roadways

n/a

LocalStreets /Transportation

Transportation serv ices,roadways owned andmaintained by thecities andCounty of San Mateo

Improveand maintain loca ltransportation fac ili ties and serv ices

Projec ts to beprogrammed bycities and/or county

GradeSeparations Eliminateat-grade railroad

crossings

Improve safety and relieveloca l

trafficcongestion

n/a

PedestrianandBicycle

Pedestrians and bicyclefac ili ties

Encourage walking and bicycling n/a

AlternativeCongestionReliefPrograms

Commutealternatives andIntelligent TransportationSys tems (ITS)

Efficiently usetransportationnetworkand reduce reliance onautomobiles

0.8 percentisfor commutealternatives and0.2 percentfor ITSprojec ts


16

Table 5.Program Category Details


19/48

CHAPTER 4

PlanningProcess



20/48

C/CAG

TAC

TA CAC

Consultants

(URS,

Carmen Clark)

ProjectManager

(TA Staff)

TA Board

(StrategicPlan

Subcommittee)

General

Public

AdHoc

City

Managers


18

4.0 PlanningProcess

Publicinvolvementis critica lto the success ofthe25-year (2009 2033) Measure A Program. Building

on the outreach involved with theconception oftheMeasure A Program and generation ofthe 2004Expenditure Plan,the development ofthis StrategicPlan included direction from policy-makers and inputfrom technicalexperts,community leaders and thepublic-at-large.

4.1 Participants

The TA Board convened a subcommitteeto overseethe development ofthe Strategic Plan and executionofa sound outreach strategy. Threekey groups helpedshapethe planning process and outreach approach:

the TA Citizens Advisory Committee,the Ad-hocCommittee of City Managers specifically formedfor this purpose,and the City/County Associationof Governments Technical Advisory Committeecomprised ofcity public works directors,engineers,and planners. The publicalso informed the processto ensurea strong connection between policy deci-sions and the needs of San Mateo County communi-ties as expressed through theapproved Measure AExpenditure Plan.

4.2 PublicOutreach

TA staff madea specialeffortto solicitinputfrom thepublicas a way to educatethem about Measure A andthe TA,including the positiveimpact ofthe half-centsales tax on countywide mobility over thelast 20 years.Given thatthe Strategic Plan is anchored to the 2004Expenditure Plan, which was developed with publicinpuit was essentialto remind the public of whatis includedin the 2004 Plan and the purpose ofthe Strategic Plan.Publicinput was needed to develop two key componentofthe Strategic Plan:criteriafor projectevaluation andprioritization;and monitoring programs and performancmeasures that would be used to ensureefficient use ofMeasure A money.

Public outreach was conducted in two phases betweenJuly and September. Thefirst phasefocused on exist-ing stakeholder groups representing a wide range ofperspectives. This phase provided the opportunity togo deeper into specificinterestareas, whilealso inform-ing the second phase of outreach to the general publicthrough community meetings. The public outreacheffort solicited input on types oftransportation projectsevaluation criteria,and performance measures. In orderto publicizethecommunity meetings, notices were sentto 46 print,five radio and 10 television media outlets,aswellas several organizations and community groups.

Figure 3.Participants


21/48


During Phase I, meetings were held with thefollowingstakeholder groups:

C/CAG BikeandPedestrian Advisory Committee

C/CAG CongestionManagementand EnvironmentalQuality Committee

Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee

CommitteeforGreenFoothills

MenloPark TransportationManagementProgram

Peninsula Traffic CongestionRelief Alliance

SamTrans and Caltrain Accessibility AdvisoryCommittees

SamTrans Citizens Advisory Committee

SanMateo County EconomicDevelopmentAssociation

SanMateo County Paratransit Coordinating Council

During Phase II,four public-at-large meetings were held in:

Pacifica(Coastside)

Burlingame(Centralcounty)

Daly City (Northcounty)

Redwood City (Southcounty)

Key comments received from the stakeholders and thepublicemphasized theimportance of particular criteriathat should be used in evaluating and prioritizing projectsand performance measures. They included:

Evaluatingtheprojectreadiness as itrelates totheplanningprocess thattheproject was subjecttoas wellas thefundingcommitmenttoadvancetheproject

Consideringgeographicalequity whenlookingattheinvestmentdecisions forthe wholeMeasure AProgram

Measuringtheeffectiveness relatingtheprojects

costs toitbenefits suchas congestionrelief,systemconnectivity,improved safety andcustomersatisfaction

The publicalso discussed types of projects they thoughtwereimportantto beconsidered for Measure A funding.Inputincluded congestion relief roadway improvements,more shuttle services to Caltrain and customer serviceinnovations. A complete summary oftheinput gatheredfrom the outreach process can befound in Appendix A.

The draft plan was released October 20 for atwo-weekpubliccomment period. Comments included concernsregarding pedestrian and bicycle program funding,theeligibility of specific projects to rece ive Measure Afunding,and questions regarding the process by whichprojects will be reviewed. A complete summary ofthecomments received on the draft Strategic Plan during the

publiccomment period can befound in Appendix B.

Thecommon themefrom the public was the desireforan efficienttransportation networkthat maximizes theirtransportation options, meets their travel needs andefficiently uses Measure A funds.


22/48


23/48

CHAPTER 5

Programmingand AllocationsGuidelines



24/48

Participant Responsibilities

Projec t Initiator(Alleligible)

- Recommend Projec tto Sponsor

Projec t Sponsor(Identifiedin ExpenditurePlan)

- SubmitFunding Requestto the TA

- Solidify Funding Plan

- Develop Projec t

- Implement Projec t

- Submit Monitoring Repor ts

- Sign Funding Agreements

Projec t Manager/Operator(To beidentified by Project Sponsor)

- Plan Projec t

- Engineer Projec t

- Construct Projec t

- Operate Serv ices

Transportation Authority - Evaluateand Prioritize Projec ts

- Program and Alloca teFunds

- Monitor Projec ts /Programs

- Sign Funding Agreements


22

This chapter defines the policy frameworkthat willguidefund programming and allocation processesand decisions. Therearethree subsections in thischapter. Section 5.1 describes the participants involvedin the Measure A Program and their respective roles andresponsibilities. Section 5.2 describes the programmingand allocation process for non-competitive programs(projects with automaticentitlements to annualalloca-tions). Section 5.3 describes the programming and allo-cation process for competitive programs (new projectsthat will be proposed through an application process).

5.1 Participants andResponsibilities

The

Mea

sure

A Program

invo

lves

f

ourke

y partici

pan

t

s:Project Initiator, Project Sponsor, Project Manager/

Operator and the Transportation Authority.

ProjectInitiatorscan beany person or entity that devel-ops a projectidea. In order for the projectto beconsid-ered for Measure A funding,the Project Initiator will neeto garner the support ofan eligible Project Sponsor tosubmitthe projectto the TA for funding consideration.TheProjectSponsorsaretheentities thatinterface withthe TA. They areidentified in the 2004 Expenditure Planand listed above.

Project Sponsors are responsiblefor working with theProject Initiators and submitt ing competitive projects tothe TA for funding consideration. Project Sponsors arealso responsiblefor project developmentand implementation. They can manage or operatethe projects them-

selves or they can identify aProjectManageror Operatoand contract outfor those services. The TransportationAuthorityis responsiblefor administering the Measure AProgram.

Table 6.Participants andResponsibili ties

5.0 Programmingand Allocations Guidelines


25/48

Program Category ProjectSponsors

Transit

Caltrain SamTrans, Joint Powers Board

Loca l Shut tles SamTrans

Accessible Serv ices SamTrans

Ferry South San Francisco, Redwood City

Dumbarton Corridor SamTrans

BART SamTrans

Highways Caltrans, Cities, San Mateo County

LocalStreets /Transportation Cities, San Mateo CountyGradeSeparations SamTrans, Cities, San Mateo County,

Joint Powers Board

Pedestrianand Bicycle Cities, San Mateo County

Alternative CongestionReliefPrograms

Cities, San Mateo County


5.2 Non-competitiveProgramsandProjects

Thereare program and projects within the Measure AProgram thatare not subjectto acompetitive TA process.Qualified programs arethosethat havecommittedfunding designated in the 2004 Expenditure Plan or froma previously executed funding agreement. Qualified proj-ects includeexisting transit services thatarecurrentlybeing funded with 1988 Measure A sales tax proceeds.

QualifiedProgramsandProjectsTherearefour programs and projects thatare non-com-petitive within the 2009-2033 program:

Transit: BART withinSanMateo County

Transit: AccessibleServices

Transit:Shuttles

LocalStreets and Transportation

For theTransit:BART within San Mateo Countyprogram,as outlined in an agreement between BART, SamTransand the TA, 2 percent of Measure A sales tax revenueswill beallocated to BART on an annual basis.

For theTransit:AccessibleServiceprogram,funding iscommitted to thecontinuation and expansion of para-transit services operated by SamTrans as Redi-Wheels.Other supplemental services to befunded within thisprogram have not yet been identified and will beconsid-ered as new projects subjectto the guidelines describedin Section 5.3.

For theTransit:LocalShuttlesprogram,funding iscommitted to existing shuttle services that have beenfunded by the 1988 Measure A Program subjecttoacceptable performance. New shuttle services to be

funded within this program have not yet been identifiedand will beconsidered as new projects subjectto theguidelines described in Section 5.3.

Table 7.ProjectSponsors


26/48


24

For theLocalStreetsand Transportationprogram,theTA is committed to providing 22.5 percent of Measure Afunding to thecities and county of San Mateo for mainte-nanceand improvements oflocaltransportation facilities.The specificamountfor each entity is determined basedon thefollowing formula: 50 percent by population and50 percent by the number of road miles within each juris-diction. Annually,the TA will updatethe road miles andpopulation figures based on California Departmentof Transportation and Department ofFinance data.

Process

The programming and allocations process for projectswith committed funding areas follows:

Staff Recommendation1.Prior to the beginning ofeach fisca l year(July 1 June 30),the TA will estimatetheamount of projec ted revenues availablefor thenon-competitive programs and projec ts. Basedon theseestimates,the TA staff will makeaprogramming and alloca tion recommendationto the Board.

TA Board Consideration2.The Board will consider the recommendations aspart oftheannual TA budgeting process. Boardapprova l will allow staf fto alloca tethe moneyand completetheannualfunding commitment.

Funding Agreements3.Prior to receiving any disbursements offunds,the receiving entity will need to executeafundingagreement with the TA. The standard fundingagreement outlines the understanding between thefunding rec ipientand the TA regarding theamountoffunding, purpose ofthefunds, paymentterms,reporting requirements,and other obligationsconnec ted to the receipt offunding.

Progress Report Submittals4.Projec t Sponsors will be required to provideannual progress reports to monitor and documentappropriate use offunds. Progress reports alsowill be used for the Loca l Shut tles program tomeasure performancefor continued receipt ofMeasure A funding.

5.3 CompetitivePrograms

Competitive programs arethosein which new projectsproposed within each program category willcompetefoMeasure A funding. Thecompetitive programs include:

Transit

Caltrain

LocalShuttles (Notincluding1988 MeasureA funded services)

AccessibleServices (Notincludingparatransit services)

Ferry

Dumbarton Rail

Highways

GradeSeparations

Pedestrianand BikeFacilities

Alternative CongestionReliefPrograms

The process for rece iving funding for new projects is:

Callfor Projects1.The TA will issuea Callfor Projec ts by programrequesting Projec t Sponsor(s) to submit projec tsfor Measure A funding consideration. Thefrequency ofthe Ca llfor Projec ts will diff er by

program and rangefrom one-time,annual,tomultiple over the 25-year duration of Measure A.As indica ted in the 2004 Measure A ExpenditurePlan,the TA will alloca teand fund projec ts in theAccessible Serv ices program ca tegory annually.The spec ificfunding cycles for the other programareto be determined based on funding availabili typrogram need and program readiness.


27/48

Need Policy Consistency Readiness Effectiveness Other

Projec tJustifica tion

2004 Expenditure Plan

Countyw ideTransportation Plan

Regionaland Loca l Plans

Planning Process

Stakeholder Support

FundingCommitment

Congestion Relief

Sys temConnec tivity

Ridersh ip

Safety

Cost

Reliabili ty

Funding Match

EconomicDevelopment

Geographic Equity

Environmental Impac t

Suppor t Transit-Oriented

Development


Within a given timeframe,the Projec t Sponsor(s)responding to the Callfor Projec ts will need tocompletea projec tapplica tion to competeforMeasure A funds. A procedures manual will bemadeavailableto assistthe Projec t Sponsors incompleting theapplica tion. Theapplica tion will requirethefollowing information:

Identification of Project Initiator, Project Sponsor,ProjectManager/Operatorand other participantsintheproject

A compelling projectjustificationand projecteffectivenessassessment

A description oftheplanning processin developingtheprojectand supportletters

Projectassessmentbased oncriteriaestablishedin

thecallfor projectsProjectscope, scheduleand budget

A reasonablecapitaland operatingfunding plan

Establishmentof baselineperformance measuresreportingconditions

Supplementalinformationtailoredtoeach programcategory

Project Evaluationand Prioritization2.The TA willassemble Projec t Review committ eesto evaluate projec tapplica tions and proposals.The review will be based on criteria outlined inthe Callfor Projec ts. Therearefiveca tegoriesofcriteriathat will beconsidered for projec tevaluation and selec tion: Need, Policy Consistency,Readiness, Effec tiveness and Other. Examplecriteriaarelisted in Table 8.

As afirst step,theNeedfor a projec t must beestablished to beconsidered for funding. Withthat basis,the projec t will be reviewed for PolicyConsistency. Is the projec tconsistent with thegoals ofthe 2004 Expenditure Plan and theCountyw ide Transportation Plan? Does it supportthe policies ofthe sponsoring citys GeneralPlan and Spec ific Plans? How does this projec tcontributeto alarger public goal?

Readinessmeasures thelevel of publicandstakeholder supportand viabili ty ofthe projec ttobefunded and implemented. Key indica tors arethequality of planning processes that wereengaged todefinethe projec t,level of supportfrom keystakeholders and the publicand availabili ty ofresources to design,implementand fund the projec t.

Table 8. ProjectSelectionandPrioritization Categoriesand Example Criteria


28/48


26

Effectivenesscriteria will be used to evaluatetheperformance merits ofthe projec t. Ifthe TA investsin a major highway improvement, how muchcongestion will be relieved? Ifitinvests in a gradeseparation, how much does itimprove safety andreduceloca ltrafficcongestion? Ifthe TA investsin a pedestrian/bike bridge, how many pedestriansand bicyclists are going to useit? Ifitinvests ina new shutt le serv ice , how many new riders aregoing to useit? Ef fec tiveness criteria will helpmeasure benefits againstthecostfor buildingand implementing these projec ts.

Other Criteriacaptures additionalcritica lconsiderations in evaluating projec ts. To whatextent does the projec t supporteconomicdevelopment? Whatis the projec t s impac t ontheenvironment? Can theimpac ts be mitigated?Does the projec t supporttransit-orienteddevelopment? Areland useand transportationdec isions linked together to achieveefficienttransportation options? And lastly, does theprojec tcontributetowards geographica lequityfor thetotal Measure A program? The Measure Aprogram is acountyw ideef fortthat musttakeintoconsideration investments throughoutthecounty.It should be noted thatthe 2004 Expenditure Planspec ifies that projec ts which supporttransit-oriented development will be given priority.

Staff Recommendation3.Based on review by the Projec t Review Committeestaff will develop a projec tfunding recommendatiofor Board consideration. The recommendation willbeclearly anchored to the program-spec ific projecevaluation and prioritization criteria.

TA Board Approval4.The TA Board willtakeac tion on the programmingof Measure A funding. This ensures commitmentto the projec t. In a separateac tion,the Board willalloca tefunding as part ofthe TAs annual budgetapproval process. This ac tion ensures timelyavailabili ty offunds.

Funding Agreements5.

Prior

t

o recei

ving

any d

isburs

em

en

t

s of

f

unds,the receiving entity will be required to execute

afunding agreement with the TA. The standardfunding agreement outlines the understandingbetween thefunding rec ipientand the TA regardintheamount offunding, purpose ofthefunds,paymentterms, reporting requirements and otherobligations connec ted to the receipt offunding.

Monitoring ReportSubmittals6.In order to ensureappropriateand efficient useof Measure A funds,the Projec t Sponsors will berequired to submit monitoring reports.


29/48

Example

Performance

Measures

- Matching Fund

- Effec tiveness

- Service Quality

- Customer Satisfac tion

- Projec t Spec ific TBD

Responsible

PartyProjec t Sponsor

ProjectDevelopment

Post-construction

TypeofMonitoring

Active Educa tion

PerformanceMeasures

Scope

Schedule

Budget

Usage

Ef fec tiveness

ResponsibleParty Projec t Sponsor TA


CapitalProjects

For capital projects, Project Sponsors will be required tosubmit monitoring reports during design developmentand construction. Thecontent ofthe reports willbefocused on project scope, scheduleand budget.Post-construction,the TA will monitor the useandeffectiveness ofthe projects. This information willbe used to inform futureinvestment decisions.

OperatingProjects

For operating projects, Project Sponsors will be requiredto submit performance reports. Sample performancemeasures include serviceeffectiveness, service qualityand customer satisfaction. This monitoring program

willassistthe TA in justifying thecontinued funding forapproved operating projects. If performance measuresindicateless then acceptable performance,the TA willwork with the Project Sponsor to set up a mitigationprogram and achieveimprovements as acondition ofcontinued funding from the Measure A Program.

Table 9. CapitalProjectMonitoringProgram

Table 10.OperatingProjectMonitoringProgram


30/48


31/48

CHAPTER 6

FundManagement



32/48

FundingSource Purpose Administrator

FTA Sec tion 5307 Purchase of buses,trains,ferries, vans,and other capitalimprovement,and Americans with Disabil ities Act (ADA) requiredParatransit Serv ice

FTA/MTC

FTA Sec tion 5309 FixedGuideways

Purchase of railcars,ferries and equipment on fixed-guidewaytransit serv ices

FTA/MTC

FHWA STP Roadway or transit rehabil itat ion,transportation system andoperationalimprovements, highway construc t ion,transitfac il ities,ITS projec ts,intermodal por tfac il it ies

FHWA/MTC

FHWA CMAQ Transportation projec ts thatimproveair quali ty and relievecongestion

FHWA/MTC

FTA JARC Projec ts and serv ices designed to transpor tlow-income persons towork; projec ts to move peopleto suburban job centers

FTA/MTC

FTA - New and Small Star ts New raillines or ex tensions; new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) fixedguideway, other BRT

Congress

FTA Elderly and Disabled Purchase of paratransit vans and related equipment Cali forniaTransporta tionCommiss ion

FTA New Freedom Program Fund publictransitalterna tives beyond thoserequired by ADA

FTA/MTC

FTA - Bus and Bus Fa cil ity Purchase of buses and improvements to bus fac ili ties Congress


30

6.0 FundManagement

In addition to defining the process for funding allocationand programming,the TA is charged with responsibly

managing the publics sales tax revenues and leveragingfunds in order to achievethe goals ofthe 2004 MeasureA Expenditure Plan. The TA willfocus on programmingand allocating funds to projects as money becomesavailableas wellas maximizing matching funds toincreasethetotalinvestmentin San Mateo Countytransportation infrastructureand services. The TA willtreat requests for advancement offunds as exceptionsto the rule. Advancement offunds must bejustified withcompelling reasons that offsettheimpact offinancingfees and/or timing offunds to other projects.

6.1 Measure A CIPandFunding Cycles

The TA will develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) tomanagetheinflux of revenues and availability of match-ing funds with anticipated projectexpenditures. The CIPwill serveas a basis for determining the specific CallforProjects cyclefor each program category. The CallforProjects cycle may differ for each program category and

rangefrom one-time,annualto multiple over the 25-yeaduration of Measure A. Annualallocations are scheduledto be madeto the Transit: Accessible Services, Transit:BART within San Mateo County, Transit: Shutt les,andLocal Streets and Transportation program categories.With theidentification of prioritized projects and contin-ued monitoring ofthelocaland countywide short- andlong-term needs and program readiness,the CIP will befinetuned on an on-going basis.

6.2 MatchingFunds

In order to maximizeinvestmentin transportation proj-ects,theability for Project Sponsors to leveragefundswill beakey criterion in theevaluation and prioritization

of projects.

ExistingSources

Navigating through thefunding networkand securingmatching funds is complicated. Thefollowing provides abrief summary oftheexisting federal, stateand loca lfunsources thatcan beleveraged with Measure A funding.Regionalfunds areconsidered as localfunds.

Table 11.FederalFundingSources (innoparticularorder)


33/48


Federal

Highlighted herearekey federal sources offund-ing:Federal Transportation Act Section 5307;FederalTransportation Act Section 5309,Federal SurfaceTransportation Program (STP),Federal CongestionMitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ),Federal Transportation Administration JobAccess and Reverse Commute Program (JARC),FederalTransportation Administration New and Small Starts,Federal Transportation Administration Elderly andDisabled,Federal New Freedom Program,and FederalTransportation Administration Bus and Bus Fac ility.Table 11 identifies the purposeand administrator for eachfunding source.

State

Highlighted herearekey state sources offunding: StateHighway Operation and Protection Program, TrafficCongestion and Relief Program, State TransportationImprovement Program, State Transit Assistance, SafeRoutes to School, Bicycle Transportation AccountandProposition 1B Infrastructure Bond. Table 12 identifiesthe purposeand administrator for each funding source.

Local

Highlighted herearekey regional/local sources offunding: Transportation Development Act, CountyTransportation Sales Tax revenues, Gasoline TaxSubventions, Regional Bridge Tolls, Vehicle LicenseFees,and Developer ImpactFees,and Transportation Fund forClean Air. Table 13 identifies the purposeand administra-tor,for each funding source.

PotentialNewSources

With escalating projectcosts and limited availability oftransportation funding, Project Sponsors areencouragedto exploreand identify non-traditional sources offunding,which is not without significantchallenges. Identifyingtradi

tionaland non-

tradi

tional

funding sources is essen-tialto meeting thetransportation needs ofthefutureand

the growing need for transportation investments.

Non-traditional sources offunding includeinnovativefinancing,establishing new funding sources anddeveloping public-private partnerships.

Table 12.StateFundingSources (innoparticularorder)

FundingSource Purpose Administrator

State Highway Operat ionand Protec tion Program

Sta te highway rehabil ita tion projec ts Caltrans

Traffic Congest ion andRelief Program

Stree ts and highways rehabil ita tion and spec ificlist of projec tsincluded in state statutes

Cali forniaTransportat ionCommission

State TransportationImprovement Program

Roadway and transitcapitalimprovement projec ts, road rehabili tation,interregionalimprovements

Caltrans/MTC

State Transit Ass istance Transitand Para transit operating ass istanceand regionaltransitcoordination Transit opera tors

Safe Routes to School Infrastruc ture projec ts and programs tha t promote walk ingand bicycling nea r schools

Bicycle Transporta tionAccount

Bicycle pa th,lane or routeconstruc tion and maintenance ,lockers, racks on transitvehicles, planning,and sa fe ty educa tion

Caltrans

Propos ition 1B General obligat ion bonds for various programs:transporta tion corridorimprovements,tradeinfrastructureand por t security projec ts, school busre trofitand replac ement, sta tetranspor tation improvement program,transitandpassenger railimprovements, state-loca l par tnersh ip transportation projec ts,transit security projec ts,loca l bridge seismic re trofit projec ts, highway-railroadgrade separa tion and crossing improvement projec ts, sta te highway safe ty andrehabil itat ion projec ts,and loca l stree tand road improvement,congest ion relief,and traffic safety

Cali forniaTransportat ionCommission


34/48


35/48

CHAPTER 7

NextSteps



36/48


34

7.0 NextSteps

FromStrategicPlantoProjectFunding

Afte

radop

tion o

f

t

he

St

rate

gic

Pla

n,t

he

TA will

f

ocus on

:

DevelopingaMeasure A Capital ImprovementPlan(CIP)

DevelopingaProcedures Manualand CallforProjects

Issuing CallforProjects

SelectingProjects

Thecriticalfirst step for the TA will beto develop a CIPbased on estimated sales tax revenue, prior fundingcommitments,countywide short- and long-term needs,and anticipated program expenditures. Theinitial CIPwill be based on forecasts of revenues and projects tobe undertaken. As a dynamicliving document,it will be

refined each year as projects are selected for funding.

Based on the CIP, TA staff willestablish thefundingcycles for the Callfor Projects. Included in the CallforProjects will bethe development of program-specificcriteriato be used in evaluating and prioritizing theprojects and the obligations associated with monitoringthe projects. The TA will makeavailablea ProceduresManualto instruct Project Sponsors through thefunding request process.

After thecollection of project proposals, projectswill be reviewed by projectevaluation committees toinform theevaluation and prioritization of projects.Recommendations will ultimately be presented to theBoard for fund programming and allocation actions,leading to funding agreements and theadvancementofapproved projects thatfulfillthe goals oftheMeasure A Program.

NextStrategicPlanUpdate

The Strategic Plan will be updated a minimum ofeveryfive years. The next update will reflectthe results oftheCallfor Projects and the projects prioritized for MeasureA funding. Publicinput willcontinueas the program

matures as it has been instrumentalin the developmentand success ofthe TA Program.


37/48

Appendices



38/48


36

Focused Interest Area :TransportationDemandManagement

Topics Comments Response

Improveconnec tivityand customer serv ice .

Suppor t new strategies.

Ensure projec ts haveacustomer serv ice oriented approach. Mak ing regionalconnec tions and mee t-ing loca l mobili ty needs are primary

goals ofthe Measure A program. Thesefac tors also will beaddressed in theneedand eff ec tiveness projec tevaluation criteriaca tegories and cus-tomer satisfac tion monitoring programperformance measure. Recommendedprojec ts will need to becoordinatedthrough the Projec t Sponsor as identi-fied in Chapter 5 to beconsidered forTA funding.

Improvecommunica tion systems and methods by addingsys tem-wide publicaddress announcements, more visualmessage signs,and providing rea l-timeinformation.

Provide bett er information at stations,including intermodaltransfers,as wellas nea rby at trac tions and rec rea tionalfac il i-ties (i.e.kiosks and info boards).

Focus on educa tion and information dissemination.

Improve options and expand the number ofloca tions forredeeming Commuter Check vouchers.

Provideadditional parking capac ity at San Mateo CountyBART stations (i.e. Daly City & Colma).

Reduce impediments to switching modes or transitagenciesthrough the use ofa universalfareca rd/seamless fare system.

A finejob is donefor North and South travelin thecounty, buteast-west shut tle serv ice across thecounty is needed.

Improveaccess and connec tivity to stations.

Crea teand expand ca rsharing, bikesharing,and ridematchingprograms.

Examine morecost-eff ec tive ways to providetransit serv ices.

Suppor ttelecommuting subsidies.

Iffixed-route serv ice is notcostef fec tive,transit serv ice providers should lookat using on-demand and deviated routeserv ices to match trips to where people need to go.

Crea tepeople-centered shutt les,instead ofroute-centeredshutt les to get peopleto popular destinations other than justCaltrain and BART.

Expand theemployer-based shut tles to provide mobili ty op-tions to morethan spec ificemployees.

Parkand ridefac ili ties should belooked atas a way to makeshutt le serv ices even moreaccessible.

Appendix A:PublicOutreach CommentsPhase 1:StakeholderOutreach Comments


39/48


Focused Interest Area:Caltrain


Improveconnec tivity,safety and thecustomerexperience

Install pedestrian quad gates for at-gradecrossings,and security cameras at stations and at-gradecrossingsto enhance safety.

Connec tivity and safety areaddressedin theef fec tiveness projec tevaluationcriteriaca tegory. Customer satisfac tionis addressed in the monitoring programper formance measure. Recommendedprojec ts will need to becoordinatedthrough the Projec t Sponsor as identi-fied in Chapter 5 to beconsidered forTA funding.

Upgrade passenger ca r interiors and station amenities(i.e. more shelter from theelements).

Implementafareintegration program to easetransfersbetween modes.

Install moreticket vending machines at stations and makethem easier to use.

Caltrain needs to purchaseadditional roll ing stockto improvecapac ity including additional bicycle passenger capac ity.

Improve system connec tivity,including loca land regionalserv ice connec tivity.

High Speed Rail How can Cali fornia High Speed Rail bond money be used to

better leverage Measure A

funds and comple

te

thecos

tlygrade separation projec ts?

Leveraging funds from all sources is

encouragedthrough

the

ef fec

tiveness

projec tevaluation criteriaca tegory.

Projec t/Policy coordination andconsistency is addressed in thepolicyconsistency projec tevaluation criteriaca tegory. The Projec t Sponsor that will play akey rolein leveraging funding andensuring investments that suppor t HSRis the JPB.

Ifthe High Speed Rail bond is approved,the TA mustensurethat money is not wasted by building capital projec ts that wil lneed to be removed when the High Speed Rail sys tem is buil t.

Focused Interest Area:SamTrans


Improve SamTransserv ice

Shor ten headways on alltransit modes in thecounty. SamTrans serv ice plans are preparedby SamTrans and will beconsidered bythe TA only as it relates to the spec ificprograms identified in the Measure AProgram. Recommended projec ts will need to becoordinated through theProjec t Sponsor as identified in Chapter5 to beconsidered for TA funding.

Address the gaps in serv ices provided.

Focused Interest Area :Accessibili ty


Improve paratransitandcoordinated serv ices

Prov ide same-day serv ices. A key focus ofthe Accessibili ty Serv icesprogram is to encourageindependentliving for seniors with spec ial mobili tyneeds. Spec ific projec ts and serv iceimprovements wil l need to becoordi-nated through the Projec t Sponsor asidentified in Chapter 5 to beconsideredfor TA funding.

Coordinate between publicand privateentities (i.e. shutt lesused by senior housing complexes).

Consider access to food and hea lth centers, particularly fortheelderly and disabled.

Provide moreaccessibil-ity fac ili ties and publicinformation

Prov ideadditionalfarecollec tion machines at moreloca tionson train platforms.

The policy consistency and readinessprojec tevaluation criteriaca tegoriesaddress ADA requirements as wellas conducting athorough planningprocess that would address the needsof stakeholders including the seniorpopulation. Spec ific projec ts and serv ice improvements wil l need to becoordi-nated through the Projec t Sponsor asidentified in Chapter 5 to beconsideredfor TA funding.

Improve signageand wayfinding at stations.

Procure vehicles thatfac il itateeasier boarding and aligning bydisabled passengers.

Embark on acampaign to getthe word out on all oftheavail-able serv ices. Targetthe population group that will usetheserv ices. Many people donteven know some serv ices exist.


40/48


38

Focused Interest Area:Environmental


Encourageenergyefficiency and protec t

natural resources

Use solar technology to power thetrains when the sys tem iselec trified (i.e. solar installations at stations and on railca rs).

Environmentalconce rns areaddressedin theother projec tevaluation criteria

ca tegory. Recommended projec tswill need to becoordinated throughthe Projec t Sponsor as identified inChapter 5 to beconsidered forTA funding.

Elec trify Caltrain to reduce our dependence on dieselfuelandimprovetheair quali ty.

Prov ideelec tricity for plug-in hybrid and elec tric vehicles atCaltrain stations.

Crea tetravellanes for neighborhood elec tric vehicles (i.e. golfca rts).

Consider stormwater runof f,flooding and watershed protec -tion when constructing new projec ts.

Transportation demandmanagement

Crea te HOV lanes in San Mateo County. Eligible highway projec ts areidentified inChapter 3. The purpose ofthe Alterna-tive Congestion Relief program is toimplement projec ts thatefficiently usethetranspor tation networkand reduce

reliance on automobiles. Recommendedprojec ts will need to becoordinatedthrough the Projec t Sponsor as identi-fied in Chapter 5 to beconsidered forTA funding.

Exp lorecongestion pricing.

Funding Where possible, maximizethe use offunding for bicycleandpedestrian improvements by funding them as par t of otherlarger ca tegories like Highways and Caltrain.

Funding for pedestrian and bikeim-provements from other Measure Aprograms is limited. Each programserves a spec ific purposeas describedin Chapter 3. A key strategy to leveragingfunding for bikeand pedestrian improve-ments is to seekfunding from othersources versus within the Measure AProgram. Key bikeand pedestrian fund-ing sources arelisted in Chapter 6.


41/48


Focused Interest Area :Pedestrianand Bicycle


Improve safety, removebarr iers, prov ideconnec -

tions,and provideaccessto ac tivity centers

Repaint stree tcrossings for bet ter visibili ty. Safety and connec tivity concernsareaddressed in theef fec tiveness

projec tevaluation criteriaca tegory.Recommended projec ts wil l need tobecoordinated through the Projec tSponsor as identified in Chapter 5 tobeconsidered for TA funding.

Installaudible pedes

trian signals a

tin

tersec

tions.

Exp lore other paving materials besides asphalt.

Always consider safety fac tors (people bikeand walk morewhen theenvironmentis perce ived as safe).

Ensureaccess to bikelockers at Caltrain stations by get tingkeys backfrom users.

Provide pedestrian grade separations/undercrossings atCaltrain tracks.

Crea tean overpass connec tion between El Camino Rea landBurgess Campus in Menlo Park .

Constructa pedestrian overcrossing for Highway 1 in HalfMoon Bay to makeit safe,espec ially for children,to crossHighway 1 and people do not haveto drivejustto getacross

the stree t.

Install more stree t-level pedestrian signals instead of under-passes or foot bridges which can pose safety conce rns.

Completethetrailfrom Montarato Half Moon Bay.

Completethetrailfrom Woodsideto Por tolato Skylineand tieitinto the parks system.

Improvecoordination among bikeand trail systems.

Reopen upper Alpine Road near Stanford for pedestrian andbiketraffic.

Investin acomplete off -road trail sys tem.

Improve walkabili ty,espec ially for seniors and persons withdisabili ties.

Crea teacountyw ide bike plan.

Improve pedestrian routes to and from schools.

Funding Incorporate pedestrian and bikeaccess into major highwayand transit projec ts so funding does notcome out ofthissmaller pot of money.

Funding for pedestrian and bikeimprovements from other Measure Aprograms is limited. Each programserves a spec ific purposeas describedin Chapter 3. A key strategy to leveragingfunding for bikeand pedestrianimprovements is to seekfundingfrom other sources versus within theMeasure A Program. Key bikeandpedestrian funding sources arelistedin Chapter 6. Based on the 2004Expenditure Plan,thereis no spli t be-t

wee

n bic

ycle

and p

edest

ria

n projec t

s.

Keep pedestrian projec t priority on par with bicycle projec ts.


42/48


40

Geographica l Area :Coastside


Transpor tation needs onthe Coas

tside

Provide more weekend and evening shut tle serv ices to BARTand Caltrain.

Under the projec tevaluation criteria ,geographicequity was added to the

otherca tegory. This addresses theimpor tance of mak ing investmentsthroughoutthecounty. Proposedprojec ts wil l need to becoordinatedthrough the Projec t Sponsors asidentified in Chapter 5 to beconsideredfor TA funding.

Crea teadditional shut tle serv ice to SFO.

People need to stop and shop for theeconomic vitali ty ofthecoastside, notjust pass through as quick ly as possible.

How can thecongestion needs ofthecoastalcommunities beaddressed?

Highway 1 is ex tremely impor tant,and trafficcongestionposes a serious hea lth & safety issueifthe road is blocked.

Highway 1 is a major thoroughfareand should betrea ted withregional significance .

Consider more possibili ties than just widening for Highway 1.

Lookatthecontext/importance ofathoroughfare

to acommunity.

Environmental ConcernsConsider ca rbon neutral buses added on thecoastalcom-mute,as wellas clean shutt les and other vehicles.

Environmentalconcerns areaddressedin theother projectevaluation criteriaca tegory. Recommended projects willneed to becoordinated through theProjec t Sponsor as identified in Chapter 5to beconsidered for TA funding.

Becognizant of stormwater flows and providefor floodcontrol.

Reduce ca rbon dioxide pollutantlevels.

Foster hea lthy communities.

Reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Phase 2: Community Meeting Comments


43/48


Geographica l Area :Bayside


Congestion Relief Promote sys tem management projec ts liketolling, rather thanmore widening.

Congestion reliefis addressed under theef fec tiveness projec tevaluation crite-

riaca tegory. Alleligiblekey congestedarea projec ts arelisted in Chapter 3.Recommended projec ts proposed forthesupplemental roadway programwil l need to becoordinated through theProjec t Sponsor as identified in Chapter 5to beconsidered for TA funding.

Revers iblelanes should beconsidered, where you cannotwiden stree ts and traffic pat terns makeitfeasible.

The SR-92 Westexit onto El Camino Rea lis very congested.

The Highway 101 and SR-92 interchange needs to be re-donesince it does not havethecapac ity to handle peak demand.

Improve highway on/of f ramps for bett er trafficflow.

Make sure projec ts ac tually improvelevel of serv ice/reduce congestion or atleast do not makethe situation worse.

Reducethe number ofca rs entering from other counties.

Reduce overall door-to-door traveltime, regardlessofthe mode.

Transit Serv ice Improvements

Improve overalltransit system connec tivity. Connec tivity is addressed under theef fec tiveness projec tevaluationcriteriaca tegory.

Improve multimodalconnec tivity and coordination, beyondjusttransit.

Make sureto preserve good cross-county connec tivity.

Lookatimpac ts on other transpor tation fac ili ties when evalu-ating projec ts.

Focus on providing accessibil ity to all .

Performance Promote good safety/accident record. Safety and cost related to benefits areaddressed under theef fec tivenessprojec tevaluation criteriaca tegory.

Improvefarebox recovery ratios.

Reducethecost per passenger.

Beca refulto weigh thecriteriaappropr iately to providethe bes

tbene

fitfor

the money expended.

Make sure projec ts ac tually mee tcommunity needs.

Needs, policyconsiderations andcoordination

Balancethe needs ofcity residents and commutersfrom other cities/counties.

Projec tjustifica tion,policy consistencyandreadinessare projec tevaluation criteriaca tegories.Ensure resource alloca tion equity between communities

receiving funds.

Ensureenvironmentalequity in criteria/impac ts.

Consider regionalimpac ts,including cumulativeimpac ts.

Ensurecoordination with city general plans.

Ensureinteragency & public/privatecoordination.

Environmental Lookattheenvironmentalimpac ts/sustainabili ty of projec ts. Environmentalconce rns areaddressedin theother projec tevaluation criteria

ca tegory.Strivefor the mostenergy efficient projec ts.

NOTE:Staffreceivedcommentsrelatedtoboththe1988and2004MeasureA Programs.

Appendix A reflectscommentsandquestionsrelatedtothe2004MeasureA Program.

Commentsandquestionsrelatedtothe1988MeasureA Programhavebeenaddressedseparately.


44/48


42

Appendix B:DraftStrategicPlan Comments

Focused Interest Area :Pedestrianand BicycleProgram

Comments Response

Ensure safe pedestrian and bicyclecrossings with interchangeimprovements. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding can beused for the planning, design developmentand

construction of projec ts in San Mateo Countythatencourageand improvecycling and walkingconditions. Thecandidatelist ofeligible projec tin the Strategic Plan were recommendedthrough the publicforums and workshops thatwereconducted for the development ofthe 200Expenditure Plan. Projec ts on thecandidatelistas wellas new proposed projec ts thataddressthe purpose ofthe program,areeligibleforfunding and will beevaluated through the Callfor Projec ts applica tion process. Incorporatingbikeand pedestrian components to other capitaprojec ts will beconsidered when program-spec ificcriteriaare defined.

Funds would be bet ter spent on mak ing existing roads safer for bicyclists to shareroads with motorists,than on building bike bridges over roads and highways.

Provide money to Caltrain to add more bicycles on trains.

Consider development of bicycle boulevards.

The Millbrae Avenueand Hil lsdale bicycle/pedestrian overpassesshouldnt befunded.

Funds should be used for educa tion and publicity about bicycle safety.

The Pedestrian and Bicycle program money should not be used to fundthe Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan recommendations.

Clarify the goals ofthe Pedestrian and Bicycle program.

Would Safe Routeto Schoolimplementation beaneligible projec t under this ca tegory?

Focused Interest Area :Highways &Roads

Comments Response

Decreasecongestion around the SR 92 and US 101 interchange. Improving safety and decreasing loca landcountyw idetrafficcongestion are primary goalofthe Measure A program. Eligible projec ts aredefined under the Highway Program descriptionin the 2004 Expenditure Plan. New projec ts(notlisted in the plan) thataddress the programpurposeareeligiblefor funding under theSupplemental Roadway subca tegory. Recom-mended projec ts will need to becoordinatedthrough the Projec t Sponsor as identified inChapter 5 to beconsidered for TA funding.

Highway 1 improvements are needed to improvecongestion,quali ty ofli fe,and safety.

Repairing potholes on loca l stree ts is impor tant.

Consider a second road (running nor th-south) throughPac ifica for emergency situations.

Synchronization oflights on Highway 1 in Pac ifica is impor tant.

Improve publicaccess on Highway 1 for safe vehicleingress and egress to twoNational Park sites in San Mateo County: Sweeney Ridgeand Montara Lighthouse.

Focused Interest Area :TransitComments Response

Improvements to Caltrain fac ili ties need to be madein atimely fashion if projec tsalong the Caltrain corr idor areto succeed as transit-or iented developments.

The 2004 Expenditure Plan spec ifies thatprojec ts which supporttransit-or iented development will be given priority. Criteriaca tegoriesthat will be used to evaluateand prioritizeprojec ts arelisted in Chapter 5.

Publictransitis impor tantfor theintermobili ty ofloca lcommunities,and for connec ting the region with bullettrains.

Caltrain projec ts, particularly thosein San Mateo County, should receive highpriority in the plan.


45/48


Focused Interest Area:Process

Comments Response

Information regarding how Projec t Review Commit tees will beestablishedneeds to be prov ided to allow for geographicequity.

Conducting athorough planning process iscaptured under the projec tReadinessevalua-

tion criteria. Each program ca tegory may dif ferslightly in its planning process definition andwill beaddressed when the program-spec ificcriteriaare defined. Additionally, projec t reviewcommit tees will beformed post-adoption ofthe Strategic Plan and timed with the CallforProjec ts.

Includeinformation in the Strategic Plan regarding how and whatcounties/agencies the TA wil lcoordinateand interface with as theStrategic Plan is implemented and funding dec isions are made.

Focused Interest Area:Funding Availabili ty

Comments Response

Consider advancing funds through selling bonds and also undertak ingprojec ts prior to theac tual revenuecollec tion of sales taxes to maximizecost savings and thecapac ity to do additional projec ts.

Requests for theadvancement offunds will beconsidered on acase-by-case basis and will need to bejustified with compelling reasons that

offsettheimpac t offinancing fees and/or timingoffunds to other projec ts.

Focused Interest Area:CriteriaandPerformanceMeasures

Comments Response

Include Environmental Benefitand/or Emissions Reduction as acriteria. Environmental Impac tis one oftheexamplecriteriafor projec tevaluation. Itincludes thepotentialenvironmental benefits and disbenefitsofa projec t. Eff ec tiveness and Policy Consis-tency are projec tevaluation criteria. Spec ificmeasures ofef fec tiveness and relevantlawsand adopted policies, such as AB 1358, will beidentified when program-spec ificcriteriaaredefined.

Be sureto assess theeff ec tiveness of projec ts.

Thereis no reference to AB 1358,the Cali fornia CompleteStree ts Act of 2008,in the Strategic Plan.

Focused Interest Area:2004 ExpenditurePlanFramework

Comments Response

The plan identifies alist of projec ts and states that other projec ts will beconsid-ered without stating thecriteriafor inclusion.

The percentage distribution for each programca tegory was determined with the developmentofthe 2004 Transpor tation Expenditure Planand approved by voters in 2004. The projec tslisted in the Strategic Plan were recommendedthrough the publicforums and workshops thatwereconducted as par t ofthe development ofthe 2004 Expenditure Plan. These projec ts areeligiblefor funding and, with theexception ofthe Key Congested Area ca tegory under theHighway Program,additional projec ts may beproposed for funding ifthey mee tthe purposeofthe program ca tegories.

The percentage sharefor Bicycleand Pedestrian projec ts should be higher.

I am conce rned thatthe percentage of money going towards highways is too muchcompared to publictransit.

NOTE:Staffreceivedcommentsrelatedtoboththe1988and2004MeasureA Programs.Appendix Breflectscommentsandquestionsrelatedtothe2004MeasureA Program.

Commentsandquestionsrelatedtothe1988MeasureA Programhavebeenaddressedseparately.


46/48


44


47/48

Acknowledgements

C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee

Member Agency

Bob Beyer San Mateo

Karen Borhmann Belmont

Randy Breault Brisbane

April Chan Caltrain

Kenneth Folan Metropolitan Transportation Com

Gene Gonzalo CalTrans

Joseph Hurley San Mateo County Transportatio

Duncan Jones Atherton

Jon Lynch Redwood City

Rick Mao ColmaIan McAvoy (Co-Chair) San Mateo County Transit Distri

Bill Meeker Burlingame

Parviz Mokhtari San Carlos

Steve Monowitz San Mateo County

Tatum Mothershead Daly City

Syed Murtuza Burlingame

Ruben Nino Menlo Park

Van Ocampo Pac ifica

Robert Ovadia Daly City

Larry Patterson San Mateo City

Ron Popp Millbrae

Jim Porter (Co-Chair) San Mateo County

Ray Towne Foster City

Sandy Wong C/CAG

SanMateo County Transportation Authority

Project TeamProject TeamMarian Lee-Skowronek , Direc tor, Planning & Development

Joe Hurley, Direc tor, Transportation Authority

Melanie Choy, Manager, Capital Projects Planning

Todd McIntyre, Manager, Spec ial Projects

Ivy Tzur, Parsons Transportation Group

Carmen Clark, Carmen Clark Consulting

Bob Schaevitz, URS Corporation

Staff/ConsultantSupportStaff/ConsultantSupportApril Chan Liria Larano

Richard Cook Bill Likens

Jim DeHart Jim McKim

Marisa Espinosa Robert Tam

Eric Harris Bill Welch

Ron Holmes

Citizens Advisory CommitteeCitizens Advisory CommitteePatricia A. Dixon, Chair Paul Young, Vice Chair

Barbara Arietta Jim Bigelow

John Fox Richard Hedges

Rand

all H

ees S

teve

Kraus

e

Austin Mader-Clark Doris Maez

Lawrence Shaine Nancy Stern

April Vargas George Zimmerman

AdHoc CityManager CommitteeAdHoc CityManager CommitteeJack Crist, Belmont

Patricia E. Martel, Daly City

James Nantell, Burlingame

ArtDirectionandDesignArtDirectionandDesignDRB Partners

,

San Jose,

California


48/48

www.smcta.com

ta strategic plan 2009-2013 final

Documents