Multi Modal Facility Feasibility Study Community Open House #3 The - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Multi ‐ Modal Facility Feasibility Study Community Open House #3 The presentation will begin at 7:05 p.m . November 16, 2017 1

Introductions Mike Costa – City of Elk Grove Interim Transit Manager Tom Metcalf – City of Elk Grove Project Manager Adam Dankberg – Consultant Project Manager Krista Pedersen – Consultant Public Outreach Daniel Harrison – Consultant Public Outreach Brynn Jensen – Consultant Public Outreach 2

Community Open House #3 Presentation Q&A Session Open House 3

Agenda • Introduce the feasibility study • Identify purpose and goals of the feasibility study • Describe site selection process • Present potential sites along the Union Pacific Rail Road’s Sacramento Subdivision Line (west side line) • Answer questions • Gather community input 4

Study Goals 1. Identify and assess the feasibility of potential locations for a multi ‐ modal facility on existing or future passenger rail service lines 2. Evaluate potential reductions to commuter traffic 3. Select a recommended location(s) using a detailed evaluation process and public input 4. Inform future planning and funding efforts for a multi ‐ modal facility 5

Study Process Schedule – 8 to 9 months (June 2017 to Jan/Feb 2018) Process: 1. Identify potential site locations 2. Estimate ridership and congestion relief 3. Evaluate site locations based on evaluation criteria 4. Present draft results to the public 5. Incorporate public input 6. Identify recommended multi ‐ modal facility site(s) 6

Partnering Agencies San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT ) 7

What is a Multi ‐ Modal Facility? Many modes of transportation in one place, such as: • Bus • Rail • Car and Bicycle Parking • Pick ‐ up/Drop ‐ off • Taxi/Lyft/Uber/Shuttle • Bicycle Facilities • Pedestrian Facilities 8

Benefits of a Multi ‐ Modal Facility • Provides centralized access to bus & rail transit • Improves connectivity between modes • Enhances access to transportation alternatives which can reduce traffic, commute times & emissions • Potential to generate economic development activity 9

Rail Service Connectivity Connecting to existing or future rail services will maximize the benefits of a Multi ‐ Modal Facility: • Gain access to national, state and regional destinations • Leverages past and future infrastructure investments • Potential to have Multi ‐ Modal Facility costs partially or fully covered by near term grant opportunities Feasibility Study has focused on potential sites immediately adjacent to existing or future rail services 10

Existing Rail Facilities SacRT Light Rail (Blue Line) UPRR Fresno Subdivision Line UPRR Sacramento (East Side Line) Subdivision Line (West Side Line) 11

UPRR West Side Line – Tonight’s Focus 10/25 City Council Direction • Focus on the UPRR West Side Line UPRR Sacramento Subdivision Line (West Side Line) • Rail line of likely future passenger service as provided by the SJJPA 12

Site Requirements – Initial Screening • Adjacent to a current or future passenger rail corridor • Within or adjacent to City Limits • Space for 1,000 ‐ foot long platform along tracks • 5 ‐ 10 acres for facilities including parking • Connectivity to existing transportation system • Prefer vacant lots or lots with low real estate impacts • Minimize risk of environmental issues (e.g. wetlands, soil contamination) • Avoid excessive construction/site design costs 13

Site Requirements – Detailed Evaluation Criteria • Cost • Within City Limits • Rail service feasibility • Other risk factors • Site adequacy for • Congestion relief multimodal use • Changes to bus network • Grant potential • Nearby bus and bike • Accessibility facilities • Ridership estimation • Opportunity for supporting • Site acquisition feasibility uses 14

Community Outreach Three Open Houses • August 2, 2017 • September 14, 2017 • Tonight (November 16, 2017) Two Online Forums • August 2 – 16 (Questionnaire) • September 14 – 21 (Comment Forum) City Council update on August 23 rd via Consent Agenda Preliminary Results Presented to City Council on October 25 th 15

Four Sites For Consideration along UPRR West Side Line Site W1 – Bilby & Willard Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd Site W3 – Laguna & Dwight Site W4 – Dwight 16

Site W1 – Bilby & Willard N Future Kammerer from I ‐ 5 to Hwy 99 Future Willard extension to Future Kammerer 17

Previous Public Input on Site W1 – Bilby & Willard Previous Public Input on Site W1: • Not a centralized location. • Viewed by some as the most viable location for commuting to Sacramento Area • Possibilities for future bay area connections • Neighborhood concerns with home values, crime, traffic, train noise 18

Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd N 19

Previous Public Input on Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd Previous Public Input on Site W2: • Concerns with impacts to the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge • Impacts to view shed of refuge open space • Neighborhoods concerns with home values, crime, traffic, train noise 20

Neighborhood Impacts • Crime • San Diego Association of Governments, 2009. Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety. http://sandiegohealth.org/sandag/publicationid_1483_10995.pdf • City of Tracy • Property Values • Diaz, Roderick, 1999. Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice083.pdf • University of California, Berkeley, 2017. Rail and the California Economy. http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/Rail_CAEconomy_Book_Report_V28_LowResPages.pdf • Strategic Economics, 2014. Property Value and Fiscal Benefits of BART. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2014 ‐ 08%20BARTPropValues_Final.pdf • Noise • Elk Grove is currently in a designated “Quiet Zone”, where trains cannot use their horns unless there is a special circumstance requiring the horn • Traffic 21

Neighborhood Impacts – City of Tracy (ACE) 22

Neighborhood Impacts – City of Tracy (ACE) 23

Site W3 & W4 – Laguna & Dwight N 24

Previous Public Input on Sites W3 & W4 Previous Public Input on Sites W3 & W4: • These sites are new and are being further considered as a result of previous public input on Sites W1 & W2 • Impacts existing businesses & results in higher project costs 25

Current Study Recap • Focus on sites along the UPRR West Side line • Goal is to identify a preferred location based on analysis of all site factors • City Council will receive all public input regarding all of the sites discussed at Open Houses in the Study, and either identify a preferred location for further site specific analysis, or identify multiple sites that could be considered for future site analysis/study 26

Next Steps Tonight – Receive Community Input for Sites along the UPRR West Side Line Nov/Dec – Finalize the Feasibility Study Date TBD ‐ City Council Approval of Study 27

Thank You For Your Participation Contact Information Project Webpage & Online Comment Forum Tom Metcalf, Project Manager tmetcalf@elkgrovecity.org bit.ly/ElkGroveMultimodal 916 ‐ 478 ‐ 2281 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, CA 95758 28