MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Gilroy City Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring
to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are
limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion
on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is
requested, the matter can be placed on the next agenda. All statements that require a
response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
REGULAR AGENDA
4. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2017.
5. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2017.
6. INFORMATION ITEM – Receive reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff.
7. INFORMATION ITEM – Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange Phase 1 Alternatives
8. INFORMATION ITEM – Update on SR 25 Interim Improvements.
9. ACTION ITEM – Overall Status/Work plan Update/Next Steps.
10. ADJOURN
Mobility Partnership February 7, 2018
If you have any questions about the Mobility Partnership, please contact VTA Community
Outreach Department at (408) 321-7575, TTY (408) 321-2330, or e-
mail [email protected] UH.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those requiring
accommodations or accessible media for this meeting should notify the Board Secretary’s Office
48 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 321-5680 or E-mail: [email protected] or TTY
(408) 321-2330. VTA’s Homepage is located on the web at: http://www.vta.org or visit us on
Facebook Uhttp://www.facebook.org/scvta U.
Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 6 August 16, 2017
MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Vice-Chairperson Muenzer
in the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Representing Status
Larry Carr Member County of Santa Clara Present
Jaime De La Cruz Member County of San Benito Present
Dan Harney Member County of Santa Clara Present
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Member County of Santa Clara Present
Jerry Muenzer Vice -Chairperson County of San Benito Present
Ignacio Velazquez Member County of San Benito Present
A quorum was present.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no public presentations.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
4. APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2016
On General Consensus, and there being no objection, the Mobility Partnership Regular
Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2016 were approved. Members Leroe-Muñoz and De La
Cruz abstained.
5. REVIEW AND APPROVE NEW MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND
ORGANIZATION INCLUDING SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-
CHAIRPERSON
Vice-Chairperson Muenzer opened up nominations from the floor. Member Carr nominated
Vice-Chairperson Muenzer as Chairperson.
Mobility Partnership Page 2 of 6 August 16, 2017
M/S/C (Carr/Leroe-Muñoz) to close nominations and elect Jerry Muenzer as the
Committee’s Chairperson.
Chairperson Muenzer opened up nominations from the floor. Chairperson Muenzer
nominated Member Carr as Vice-Chairperson.
M/S/C (Muenzer/ Leroe-Muñoz) to close nominations and elect Larry Carr as the
Committee’s Vice Chairperson.
On General Consensus and there being no objection, Mobility Partnership
Members selected Jerry Muenzer as Chairperson and Larry Carr as Vice-Chairperson.
6. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF
Jim Lawson, VTA Director of Public Affairs; Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County
Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director; and Chris Metzger, Project Manager , provided
updates on sales tax Measure B for Santa Clara County, SB 1 legislation update, Regional
Measure 3 and high-speed rail.
Discussion:
1. Mr. Jim Lawson provided an update on Santa Clara County’s sales tax measure B. The
sales tax measure was passed on November 8, 2016 with 71.74% yes votes. The half-cent
cents sales tax measure will generate approximately $6.3B in the next thirty (30) years and
would allocate $750M to improve key highway interchanges. Approval on implementation
guidelines of Measure B is expected to go to the September 2017 Board. However, there is a
pending lawsuit on Measure B with an appeal deadline on August 20th.
Chairperson Muenzer inquired if the Measure B lawsuit is a challenge based on principle.
Mr. Lawson said that basis of lawsuit is on the premise that VTA as a special district cannot
propose a general tax.
Member Leroe-Muñoz asked on the factors in determining impact on highway project
interchanges prioritization. Mr. Lawson said that factors are still being developed to
determine project benefits and expeditious use of funds.
2. Mr. Lawson provided an update on Regional Measure 3 legislation. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) is working with the legislature to authorize a new ballot
measure that could increase tolls on the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges with the
exception of Golden Gate Bridge. If approved by the voters of the nine Bay Area counties,
revenues from a toll increase of up to $3 would be used to finance projects that provide
benefits to toll bridge corridors. Currently, legislators are seeking input from various
stakeholders.
NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mobility Partnership Page 3 of 6 August 16, 2017
Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if Regional Measure 3 will provide additional funds to Measure
B projects. Mr. Lawson answered in the affirmative. Santa Clara County transportation
projects are considered for funding through this measure.
2. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on SB 1 programs with focus on implementation schedule.
Vice-Chairperson Carr inquired on the entity that will apply for funds. Mr. Lawson opined
that it is not yet clearly defined and follow up legislation might be introduced for
clarification. VTA Legal Department is still studying the bill language to determine funding
application ability. Projects may be recommended by regional transportation planning
agencies, county transportation commissions and the state.
Member De La Cruz asked if projects will be competitive. Ms. Gilbert said that local
jurisdictions, local cities and counties have allocation for Local Streets and Roads Program.
Other programs will be competitive with the exception of “Local Partnership Program”
which has a formula component that still needs to be decided. SB 1 is a long-haul funding
program and a stable funding source.
Member De La Cruz asked what SBCOG and VTA have done and can do to leverage the
limited dollars. Chairperson Muenzer requested the Staff to update the MP members on SB 1
programs’ development.
Member Velazquez opined that SR 152 Trade Corridor project will be very competitive in
the Solutions for Congested Corridor Program. Mr. Lawson suggested that SR 152 Trade
Corridor project might have an opportunity in the “Trade Corridor Enhancement” Program
which provides funding for corridor-based freight projects nominated by local agencies and
the state.
3. Mr. Metzger provided updates on High Speed Rail (HSR). The Preliminary Preferred
Alternative (for San Jose to Merced) is planned to be out by late 2018 and Record of
Decision by early 2019.
Mr. Metzger also reminded that one of the reasons Mobility Partnership has been resurrected
is due to discussion with Senator Beall on SB 1 legislation and to pursue a unified voice on
this project.
7. PRESENTATION ON US 101/SR 25 INTERCHANGE AREA
Discussions:
Mr. Metzger provided a presentation on the US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential
improvements identified in various studies including: SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study
Report (2015), SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016) and US 101 Widening Environmental
Report (2013).
Mobility Partnership Page 4 of 6 August 16, 2017
1. Member Leroe-Muñoz inquired on the project timeline of the various presented
alternatives. Mr. Metzger opined that for the first option that is already CEQA cleared with
Measure B funds (state and local money): design phase will take up to two years and
construction phase (estimated cost of $60M to $80M) approximately will take two to three
years. Thus, fastest timeline would be five years to have improvements in place. If the project
would need federal clearance, preliminary work would be required that could take
approximately two to three years extending the process.
2. Member Velazquez asked if it pertains to the design of two left lanes merging with SR 25.
Mr. Metzger said that the configuration that is environmentally cleared, has approximately
five-year timeline. However, a first phase still needs to be identified that could involve a new
structure; relocation of structure and some critical ramp improvements. A flyover is not
currently part of the configuration. A flyover could be considered as a first phase and would
address some of the high traffic demand.
3. Member Velazquez discussed routing of SR 156 and SR 25 and the SR 152 southern route
which would help both Santa Clara and San Benito counties. This would create a trade
corridor for the SR 152 southern route concept and potentially save additional dollars from
what was previously presented.
Member Velazquez indicated an inclination to support the flyover option that would allow
smoother traffic flow albeit with a longer project timeline.
4. Member De La Cruz inquired on the timeline of the “bigger picture” project in relation to
the Phase 1 being discussed. Mr. Metzger said that definition of the project’s Phase 1 would
take approximately six months and might likely require re-evaluation of environmental
impacts. It could be possible to pursue both Phase 1 definition and further development of the
152 corridor in parallel.
Member De La Cruz also concurred with Member Velazquez to look at the long-term
solution or concept.
5. Member Velazquez mentioned that simple fixes on SR 25 can relieve current traffic
congestion and could be incorporated within the approach to define the project’s Phase 1.
6. Mr. Metzger said that direction from MP members appear to encourage the development
of Phase 1 of the US 101/SR 25 interchange that would support the future SR 152 Trade
Corridor Project.
7. Vice-Chairperson Carr asked if Phase 1 of the SR 152 Trade Corridor would help the US
101/SR 25 Interchange. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative. The direct connector and
associated first phase of the ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor could contribute to
improvements at the US 101/SR 25 Interchange.
Mobility Partnership Page 5 of 6 August 16, 2017
Vice-Chairperson Carr said that in order to adhere to Measure B guidelines, the proposed
Phase 1 project should contribute to the US 101/SR 25 Interchange improvements and to the
project (US 101 Widening) previously environmentally cleared.
8. PRESENTATION ON CITY OF GILROY TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENTS
Discussions:
Michael Fisher, City of Gilroy Transportation Engineer, provided a presentation on City of
Gilroy transportation improvements.
1. Member Velazquez expressed hope that future plans would include pedestrian and bike
trail that would connect Morgan Hill, and San Jose to San Benito County.
9. NEXT STEPS
Discussion:
Chris Metzger, Project Manager, discussed workplan updates, next steps and action items.
1. Chairperson Muenzer asked if project alignment with High Speed Rail would result in
limited economic activity. Mr. Metzger answered in the affirmative that the northern
alignment paralleling High Speed Rail would limit ability to provide access to areas in San
Benito County identified for economic development.
2. Member Leroe-Muñoz stated preference that MP members to decide first on the alternative
and design structure in terms of prioritization.
3. Chairperson Muenzer noted that the Board of Supervisors in San Benito County adopted a
resolution rescinding a previous resolution that supported a northern alternative. This paves
way to study other alternatives.
4. Member Velazquez requested staff to update new MP members on various alternatives.
5. Mr. Metzger suggested in the coming months to focus on the US 101/SR 25 Interchange
and the SR 152 southern route.
6. Chairperson Muenzer requested for another Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) presentation to
benefit and update new members.
7. Vice-Chairperson Carr said that the first priority should be to set the direction to improve
the US 101/SR 25 interchange and the ultimate layout to lead into the SR 152 Trade
Corridor. SR 152 Trade Corridor design, funding (P3, tolling option, etc.) and JPA formation
should also be addressed in the workplan.
Mobility Partnership Page 6 of 6 August 16, 2017
8. Member Velazquez asked if forming a JPA would speed up or slow down the process. Mr.
Lawson suggested that the MP proceed in its current path as a committee.
10. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
Discussions:
1. Members requested that next meetings be scheduled for October 11, 2017 (Wednesday)
and January 10, 2018 (Wednesday) at 9:00 a.m. in the City of Gilroy. Specific location to be
determined.
11. ADJOURNMENT
On the order of Chairperson Muenzer, and there being no objection, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca de Leon
VTA Highway Program
Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 4 October 11, 2017
MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:09 a.m. by Chairperson Muenzer in
the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Representing Status
Larry Carr Member County of Santa Clara Absent
Jaime De La Cruz Member County of San Benito Absent
Dan Harney Member County of Santa Clara Absent
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Member County of Santa Clara Present
Jerry Muenzer Vice -Chairperson County of San Benito Present
Ignacio Velazquez Member County of San Benito Absent
Meeting as a Committee of a Whole.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no public presentations.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
4. APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017
Due to lack of a quorum, approval of Mobility Partnership Regular Meeting Minutes of
August 16, 2017 was moved to the next Mobility Partnership meeting.
5. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF
Casey Emoto, VTA Deputy Director of Engineering and Program Delivery; Mary Gilbert,
Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive Director; Chris Metzger,
Project Manager; and Bruce Abanathie, Principal Transportation Planner - VTA
Programming and Grants Department, provided updates on sales tax Measure B for Santa
Clara County, sales tax measure for San Benito County, SB 1 legislation update, STIP,
Regional Measure 3 and high-speed rail.
Mobility Partnership Page 2 of 4 October 11, 2017
Discussion:
1. Mr. Casey Emoto delivered an update on Santa Clara County’s sales tax measure B. The
sales tax measure was passed on November 8, 2016 with tax collection started on April
2017. Currently, the tax measure is under litigation. VTA prevailed in the lower court,
but the plaintiff appealed the lower court’s decision in August 2017.
Chairperson Muenzer inquired if VTA will continue to collect tax while the tax measure
is under litigation. Mr. Emoto answered that money being collected from tax measure is
being held in an escrow account until the issue is resolved.
2. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on a proposed sales tax measure for San Benito County.
SBCOG will hold special meetings to explore a possible sales tax measure likely for the
November 2018 elections. Long-term infrastructure projects will be considered for the
tax measure such as the SR 25 Widening project which would tie in with the US 101/SR
25 Interchange Improvements and SR 152 Trade Corridor Project.
Member Leroe-Muñoz asked if the proposed sales tax measure requires two-thirds voter
approval. Ms. Gilbert answered in the affirmative.
3. Mr. Abanathie discussed transportation funding opportunities such SB 1 programs, State
Transportation Improvements Program (STIP), Regional Measure 3.
4. Mr. Metzger provided updates on High Speed Rail (HSR). Environmental document is
planned to be out by late 2018. The HSR 2018 Business Plan is planned to be out for
review in February 2018. The City of San Jose has developed additional alternatives for
the southern end of the City which could impact the schedule for release of the
environmental document.
Member Leroe-Muñoz provided an update on the City of Gilroy’s HSR station area plan.
In summer of 2017, the City of Gilroy had a meeting with HSR representative to discuss
the options for a Gilroy HSR station and corresponding alignments; one downtown
(along the current UPRR corridor which will make use of the existing Caltrain station)
and one east of town (east of the outlets). Gilroy City Council recommended to consider a
third option that was not previously considered: an option that would track along US 101.
6. PRESENTATION ON US 101/SR 25 INTERCHANGE AREA
Discussions:
Mr. Metzger provided a presentation on the US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential
improvements identified in various studies including: SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study
Mobility Partnership Page 3 of 4 October 11, 2017
Report (2015), SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016) and US 101 Widening Environmental
Report (2013).
1. Member Leroe-Muñoz inquired on the construction phase timeline of the two presented
US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements options. Mr. Metzger said that there is no major
difference on the project delivery timeline for the two options. Both options entail the same
environmental reevaluations which could take one year. Design phase could take up to two
years and construction phase could take approximately two years. Thus, fastest timeline
would be approximately five years to have improvements in place.
2. Chairperson Muenzer asked if the US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option A traffic from SR 25
going to southbound US 101 would be signalized. Mr. Metzger confirmed that it would be a
signalized intersection.
3. Member Leroe-Muñoz inquired if it would be timed signal or sensor-based signal. Mr.
Metzger said that it would be sensor-based signal.
4. Chairperson Muenzer asked if the US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option B would essentially
build a commuter lane. Mr. Metzger explained that lane could be a managed lane possibly
with tolling. Mr. Metzger described that the configuration with tolling would be similar to the
express lanes already in operation in the county where a driver could pay to access the lane
when there is capacity. Mr. Emoto said that VTA’s long range plan includes extending
express lanes on US 101 to SR 25. Mr. Metzger described that Option B would feature a
direct connector and decision on the type of connector (managed or not) has not been made.
Further analysis is needed.
5. Chairperson Muenzer inquired if it would result in changed driving patterns for San Benito
County residents. Ms. Gilbert shared that it’s not known if this would result in changed
driving patterns. Mr. Emoto explained that additional studies and analysis for the
community/commuters are still needed.
6. Member Leroe-Muñoz requested to continue to analyze and provide additional research
information to the Mobility Partnership members.
7. Mr. Muenzer offered to provide a list of pros and cons for the two options to aid the
members in coming up with a decision related to US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements
project. Member Leroe-Muñoz also requested for “hard numbers” such as vehicle
throughput to the extent that staff is able to quantify some of these considerations.
6. Chairperson Muenzer also advised the staff to look into the widening of SR 156 between
Hollister and San Juan Bautista and the effect on commuter traffic to the existing US 101/SR
25 Interchange traffic.
Mobility Partnership Page 4 of 4 October 11, 2017
.
7. UPDATES ON SR 25 INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief, provided updates on SR 25 interim
improvements.
8. NEXT STEPS
Discussion:
Chris Metzger, Project Manager, discussed workplan updates, next steps and action items.
1. Kristina Wyatt of San Benito County Business Council (SBCBC) informed the committee
that constituents of State Assemblymember Anna Caballero and San Benito County
Congressman Jimmy Panetta through the elected staff would like to assist in infrastructure
lobbying efforts. Member Leroe-Muñoz requested Ms. Wyatt to inform the MP committee on
upcoming related infrastructure meetings by the SBCBC.
2. Member Leroe-Muñoz prefers the MP members to decide first on the alternative and
design structure in terms of prioritization.
10. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
Discussions:
1. Members requested that next meetings be scheduled for January 10, 2018 (Wednesday)
Specific location and time to be determined.
11. ADJOURNMENT
On the order of Chairperson Muenzer, and there being no objection, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:11 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca de Leon
VTA Highway Program
Memo on Agenda Item 6
Date: February 7, 2018
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Director of Engineering and Transportation Program Delivery;
Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive
Director
SUBJECT: Receive reports from VTA and SBCOG staff
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report from VTA and SBCOG staff on items related to the Mobility Partnership.
BACKGROUND:
Staff from VTA and SBCOG to provide status update on the following:
Sales tax measure for Santa Clara County – Measure B
Sales tax measure for San Benito County
SB 1 Funding application under Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) for US
101/SR 25 Interchange Phase 1
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Regional Measure 3
High Speed Rail update
Memo on Agenda Item 7
Date: February 7, 2018
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange - Phase 1
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive presentation on US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential Phase 1improvements
consistent with various studies including:
US 101 Widening Environmental Report (2013)
SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study Report (2015)
SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016)
Two options to be studied further
BACKGROUND:
See attached presentation and attachments.
Memo on Agenda Item 8
Date: February 7, 2018
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Nick Saleh, Caltrans District 4 Division Chief
SUBJECT: Update on SR 25 Interim Improvements
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive progress update on SR 25 interim improvements analysis.
Proposed alternatives:
- US 101/25 Interchange Southbound auxiliary lane to Castro Valley Rd.
- Restrict Bolsa Road left turns to southbound SR 25
- Rail Road crossing next to Bloomfield Ave. Mandatory stopping
- Traffic Signal timing adjustment at 101/Monterey Ave, SB off ramp.
- Traffic Calming on Bolsa Road.
Next Steps:
- Existing Traffic Data (Santa Clara County to provide)
- CT/SCL/SB Coordination with Z Best proposed improvements
- Conclude the study/analysis.
- Implementation plan
- Outreach: Property Owners / California Highway Patrol (CHP) / Public
BACKGROUND:
Oral report to be provided.
Memo on Agenda Item 9
Date: February 7, 2018
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Overall Status/Workplan Update/Next Steps
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve workplan updates, next actions, and action items per today’s meeting.
BACKGROUND:
See attached workplan document and potential future activities/decisions.
Based on this workplan and discussions held at the meeting, agree upon next steps.
Mobility PartnershipFebruary 7, 2018
US 101/SR 25
Interchange
2
Agenda Item 7
3
US 101/SR 25 Measure B (CEQA Cleared)Agenda Item 7
Total Project Cost Estimate~ $200M
Key Elements Widen US 101 – Monterey to
SR 25 (to freeway standards)
Construct new bridge
Construct new ramps
Grade separate UPRR
New frontage roads
Connect to Santa Teresa Blvd
Signalize ramp/SR 25
intersections
4
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option A (New Bridge)Agenda Item 7
Total Project Cost Estimate~ $65M
Key Elements Construct new bridge
Two lane SB 101 off-ramp
Improve ramps
Signalize ramp intersections
Eliminate access from/to
Castro Valley Road
5
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Option B (Direct Ramp)Agenda Item 7
Key Elements Interchange remains
Shift 101 SB to west
Eliminate access from Castro
Valley Road
Direct connection median US
101 to SR 25 – over UPRR
Total Project Cost Estimate~ $50M
6
Ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor (CEQA Cleared and
SR 152 Direct Connector)Agenda Item 7
Total Project Cost Estimate~ $250M
7
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Cost EstimateAgenda Item 7
Phase
COST ESTIMATE
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 -
Option A (New Bridge)
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 -
Option B (Direct Ramp)
PA/ED $1M
PS&E $5M $3M
ROW $7M $7M
CON $52M $39M
Totals $65M $50M
8
US 101/SR 25 Phase 1 – Project ScheduleAgenda Item 7
Phase Start FinishDuration (Months)
2006-2013 2014-2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
66 Months 48 Months
Project Approval Oct 2006 Sept 2013 66
& Environmental
Clearance (CEQA)
Environmental Clearance Jul 2018 Jun 2019 12
(NEPA & Revalidation of CEQA)
Project Design Jan 2019 Dec 2020 24
Phase (PS&E)
Right of Way Jul 2019 Dec 2020 18
Advertise Jan 2021 April 2021 4
Construction
Contract
Project May 2021 Oct 2022 18
Construction
Begin new operating conditions
Closeout Nov 2022 April 2023 6
Update on SR 25
Interim Improvements
9
Agenda Item 8
10
Update on SR 25 Interim ImprovementsAgenda Item 8
Work Plan/Next Steps
11
Agenda Item 9
12
Work Plan/Next StepsAgenda Item 9
Original Work Plan Element Status Next Action
1. Review New Alignment Concepts for SR 152 Two Alternative Corridors defined: “PSR corridor” and
“Southern corridor” per July 19, 2016 meeting. Work on hold
focus on US 101/SR 25 Interchange – get new team on board.
Develop “Southern Corridor” to better
define geometry and identify/assess
impacts/cost. Pending clarity on first
phase at US 101/SR 25 Interchange.
2. Assess Potential Near Term Funding
Opportunities
Potential Funding for US 101/SR 25 I/C from Santa Clara
County Measure B Sales Tax Measure November, 2016. State
transportation funding bill – SB 1. Considering application to
FASTLANE Grant program. San Benito County Future Sales Tax.
Work with CTC to submit 152 Corridor
funding (SB 1). If/when applicable,
assess FASTLANE Grant program.
3. Workshop on Institutional/Governance Topics Received report(s) for MP meetings conducted on the
following 2016 dates: March 9, September 14, and November
9.
Pending identification of funding
and/or direction forward. Review
concept later in 2018.
4. Assess Opportunities to Coordinate with High
Speed Rail
Received report at May 11, 2016 meeting. Regular updates
provided. HSR supportive of improving 152 to provide access
to Gilroy Station, but does not see nexus to help fund from HSR
funds. Southerly SR 152 provides less obvious opportunities.
Develop more formal support from
HSRA for use in discussions with State
Legislators. Dependent on more clarity
for 152 corridor.
5. Establish and implement Outreach Plan Draft Plan presented at September 14, 2016. Report on initial
outreach at November 9, 2016 MP meeting.
Consider next steps in 2018 when
Phase 1 is more clearly defined.
6. Assess Options for Delivering SR 152 Trade
Corridor and SR 25 improvements
Discussion held at July 19, 2016 MP meeting that full funding
from public funds not likely. Presentation on P3 basics part of
September 14, 2016 MP meeting. P3 Agreement likely best
approach for SR 152 between US 101 and SR 156.
Develop options for first phase of
101/25 interchange improvements
consistent with MP goals. Redefine
limits/expectations of SR 152 Trade
Corridor and P3 potential project.
7. Define Phase 1 Project and Secure Funding SR 152 Trade Corridor consultant contract expired on
12/31/2017.
Prepare RFP package for PA/ED Phase.
[Q1,2018]
Updated : February 2018
Questions
13