mobility partnership...

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.

mailto:[email protected]

Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 6 August 16, 2017


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.


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.

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 4

deleon_re

Rectangle


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

deleon_re

Rectangle

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 5


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


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.


.

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




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.




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.




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


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


6

Ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor (CEQA Cleared and

SR 152 Direct Connector)Agenda Item 7


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

mobility partnership...

Documents