AGENDA Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:00 a.m

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

AGENDA

Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:00 a.m.

See the last page for details about access for people with disabilities and meeting broadcasts. NOTE

Para información sobre servicios de traducción al español, diríjase a la última página. En Español

To receive email notification when the RTC meeting agenda packet is posted on our website, AGENDAS ONLINE

please call (831) 460-3200 or email [email protected] to subscribe.

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP Caltrans (ex-officio) Tim Gubbins

City of Capitola Dennis Norton City of Santa Cruz Don Lane City of Scotts Valley Randy Johnson City of Watsonville Eduardo Montesino County of Santa Cruz Greg Caput County of Santa Cruz Neal Coonerty County of Santa Cruz Zach Friend County of Santa Cruz John Leopold County of Santa Cruz Bruce McPherson Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Dene Bustichi Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Ron Graves Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Lynn Robinson

The majority of the Commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.

Article 8 Transportation Development Act Claims – only City and County representatives vote Article 4 Transportation Development Act Claims, Policy Issues, and SAFE – all 12 members vote

NOTE LOCATION THIS MONTH Capitola City Council Chambers

420 Capitola Avenue Capitola, CA

mailto:[email protected]�

SCCRTC Agenda May 2, 2013 2

1. Roll call 2. Oral communications

Any member of the public may address the Commission for a period not to exceed three minutes on any item within the jurisdiction of the Commission that is not already on the agenda. The Commission will listen to all communication, but in compliance with State law, may not take action on items that are not on the agenda

Speakers are requested to sign the sign-in sheet so that their names can be accurately recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

3. Additions or deletions to consent and regular agendas

CONSENT AGENDA

All items appearing on the consent agenda are considered to be minor or non-controversial and will be acted upon in one motion if no member of the RTC or public wishes an item be removed and discussed on the regular agenda. Members of the Commission may raise questions, seek clarification or add directions to Consent Agenda items without removing the item from the Consent Agenda as long as no other Commissioner objects to the change.

MINUTES 4. Approve draft minutes of the March 21, 2013 Regional Transportation

Commission special meeting

5. Approve draft minutes of the March 21, 2013 Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) meeting

6. Accept draft minutes of the February 21, 2013 Interagency Technical Advisory

Committee (ITAC) meeting 7. Accept draft minutes of the March 11, 2013 Bicycle Committee meeting

8. Accept draft minutes of the March 13, 2013 Safe on 17 Task Force/Traffic

Operations System Oversight Committee

9. Accept draft minutes of the April 9, 2013 Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee meeting

10. Accept draft minutes of the April 11, 2013 Budget and

Administration/Personnel Committee meeting

POLICY ITEMS

No consent items


PROJECTS and PLANNING ITEMS 11. Approve Section 5310 Grant Application Scores (Resolution)

12. Accept the Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Count Final

Report BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES ITEMS

13. Accept status report on Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues

14. Accept FY2013 Semi-Annual Internal Financial Statements (enclosed

separately for Commissioners)

15. Approve amendments to the FY 2012-13 Budget & Work Program (Resolution)

ADMINISTRATION ITEMS 16. Approve Bicycle Committee membership appointments

17. Approve appointment of Commissioners to the Budget and

Administration/Personnel Committee INFORMATION/OTHER ITEMS

18. Accept monthly meeting schedule 19. Accept correspondence log 20. Accept letters from RTC committees and staff to other agencies

a. Letter from Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee thanking

Supervisor Coonerty for supporting restoration of Metro bus service to the Frederick Street/Gault/La Posada neighborhood

b. Letter from Bicycle Committee thanking RTC staff for its presentation of preliminary designs for planned Highway 1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing project at Chanticleer Avenue

c. Letter from Bicycle Committee urging Santa Cruz City Council to reinstate the City of Santa Cruz’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee

21. Accept miscellaneous written comments from the public on RTC projects and

transportation issues 22. Accept information items

a. Bruce Sawhill, “Train tracks an investment in our future,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 20, 2013.

jlaning

Typewritten Text

(Available for review at RTC Offices, 1523 Pacific Ave.)


b. March 14, 2013 letter from AMBAG announcing appointment of RTC Executive Director George Dondero as an Ex Officio member of the AMBAG Board of Directors.

c. Evan Ackerman, “Study: Intelligent Cars Could Boost Highway Capacity by 273%,” posted September 4, 2012 at spectrum.ieee.org.

REGULAR AGENDA

23. Commissioner reports – oral reports

24. Director’s report – oral report (George Dondero, Executive Director) 25. Caltrans report and consider action items

a. District Director’s report b. Construction projects update

26. Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lane project update

(Kim Shultz, Senior Transportation Planner)

a. Staff report 27. Highway 1 Corridor Environmental Analysis (Kim Shultz, Senior Transportation Planner)

a. Staff report 28. Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 Proposed Budget (Luis Pavel Mendez, Deputy Director)

a. Staff report b. Resolution approving the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 budget c. Actual and estimated Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues

29. Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

(Rachel Moriconi, Senior Transportation Planner)

a. Staff report b. Resolution c. Fact sheet on statewide local streets and roads needs assessment

30. Scenario Planning for 2014 Transportation Plans (Ginger Dykaar, Transportation Planner and Grace Blakeslee, Senior Transportation Planner) (Note: Pages 30-3, 30-7, and 30-8 replaced with handouts)

a. Staff report b. Transportation Investment Scenarios

http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2013-05-02-rtc-handouts.pdf#page=37

jlaning

Typewritten Text


31. Permission to use rail line for Run by the Sea (Luis Pavel Mendez, Deputy Director)

a. Staff report

32. Adjourn to special meeting of the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies

No agenda items this month 33. Next meetings

The next RTC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at the Watsonville City Council Chambers, 275 Main Street, Suite 400, Watsonville, CA. The next Transportation Policy Workshop meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 16 at 9:00 a.m. at the RTC Offices, 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA.

HOW TO REACH US Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 phone: (831) 460-3200 / fax (831) 460-3215 Watsonville Office 275 Main Street, Suite 450, Watsonville. CA 95076 (831) 768-8012 email: [email protected] / website: www.sccrtc.org HOW TO STAY INFORMED ABOUT RTC MEETINGS, AGENDAS & NEWS Broadcasts: Many of the meetings are broadcast live. Meetings are cablecast by Community Television of Santa Cruz. Community TV’s channels and schedule can be found online (www.communitytv.org) or by calling (831) 425-8848. Agenda packets: Complete agenda packets are available at the RTC office, on the RTC website (www.sccrtc.org), and at the following public libraries: - Aptos Branch Library - Branciforte Library - Central Branch Library - Scotts Valley Library - Watsonville Library For information regarding library locations and hours, please check online at www.santacruzpl.org or www.watsonville.lib.ca.us.


http://www.sccrtc.org/�

http://www.communitytv.org/�

http://www.sccrtc.org/�

http://www.santacruzpl.org/�

http://www.watsonville.lib.ca.us/�


On-line viewing: The SCCRTC encourages the reduction of paper waste and therefore makes meeting materials available online. Those receiving paper agendas may sign up to receive email notification when complete agenda packet materials are posted to our website by sending a request to [email protected]. Agendas are typically posted 5 days prior to each meeting. Newsletters: To sign up for E-News updates on specific SCCRTC projects, go to www.sccrtc.org/enews. HOW TO REQUEST

ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability and no person shall, by reason of a disability, be denied the benefits of its services, programs, or activities. This meeting location is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend this meeting and require special assistance in order to participate, please contact RTC staff at 460-3200 (CRS 800/735-2929) at least three working days in advance of this meeting to make arrangements. People with disabilities may request a copy of the agenda in an alternative format. As a courtesy to those person affected, Please attend the meeting smoke and scent-free.

SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCIÓN/ TRANSLATION SERVICES

Si gusta estar presente o participar en esta junta de la Comisión Regional de Transporte del Condado de Santa Cruz y necesita información o servicios de traducción al español por favor llame por lo menos con tres días laborables de anticipo al (831) 460-3200 para hacer los arreglos necesarios. (Spanish language translation is available on an as needed basis.) Please make advance arrangements (at least three days in advance) by calling (831) 460-3200.

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\2013-05-02-rtc-agenda.docx


http://www.sccrtc.org/enews�


SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES

Thursday, March 21, 2013

1. Roll call

The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. Brandy Rider (ex-officio) Dennis Norton Don Lane Randy Johnson Eduardo Montesino Greg Caput Andy Schiffrin (alternate) Zach Friend John Leopold Bruce McPherson Virginia Johnson (alternate) Ron Graves Lynn Robinson Staff present: George Dondero Rachel Moriconi Ginger Dykaar Grace Blakeslee Karena Pushnik Amy Naranjo Yesenia Parra Jason Laning David Pape

2. Oral communications

Terry Rein, an attorney with Bosso Williams and representing the Sorrento Oaks Homeowners Association, said she recently wrote a letter to Deputy Director Luis Mendez regarding a title discrepancy issue at Sorrento Oaks, and asked that the Commission review her letter carefully.

Jack Nelson, Santa Cruz resident, said he is concerned about the possible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and discussed an article from the January 2013 issue of Scientific American titled, “The Coming Megafloods.”

3. Additions or deletions to consent and regular agendas

Executive Director George Dondero said that there were add-on pages for Item 9 and one replacement page for Item 14. He said that staff recommends pulling

Santa Cruz City Council Chambers 809 Center Street

Santa Cruz, CA

SCCRTC Meeting Minutes March 21, 2013 2

Item 28 from the Regular Agenda which will be put on the April Budget and Administration Personnel Committee agenda. Commissioner Norton moved and Commissioner Lane seconded to remove Item 28 from the Regular Agenda. The motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA

(Lane, Leopold) Unanimous

MINUTES 4. Approved draft minutes of the February 7, 2013 Regional Transportation

Commission meeting

5. Accepted draft minutes of the February 12, 2013 Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee meeting

6. Accepted draft minutes of the February 14, 2013 Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee meeting

POLICY ITEMS 7. Accepted information item on abstaining from voting on RTC actions PROJECTS and PLANNING ITEMS

8. Approved amendments to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program

(RTIP) (Resolution 16-13)

9. Approved Rail Transit Planning Grant submittal (Resolution 17-13)

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES ITEMS 10. Accepted status report on Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues

11. Approved amendments to the FY 2012-13 Budget & Work Program (Resolution

18-13)

ADMINISTRATION ITEMS 12. Approved consultant selection for 2013 Triennial Performance Audit

(Resolution 19-13)

13. Approved out of state travel for Executive Director 14. Approved rejection of claim from Sandpiper Home Owners Association (HOA) INFORMATION/OTHER ITEMS


15. Accepted monthly meeting schedule 16. Accepted correspondence log 17. Accepted letters from RTC committees and staff to other agencies - none

18. Accepted miscellaneous written comments from the public on RTC projects and

transportation issues 19. Accepted information items

a. Anna Chen, “Share the road, it’s the law,” posted to metro.net’s blog “The

Source” on March 4, 2013 b. Curtis Tate, “Amtrak ridership, up 55 percent nationwide, triples in

Sacramento,” Sacramento Bee, March 1, 2013

REGULAR AGENDA Commissioner Randy Johnson arrived to the meeting. 20. Commissioner reports – oral reports

None 21. Director’s report – oral report

Executive Director George Dondero said that he joined Commissioners Montesino, McPherson, and members of the Central Coast Coalition in Sacramento on March 20th to discuss with legislators the need for transportation funding. Commissioners discussed the legislative and transportation funding issues related to the visit.

Mr. Dondero also reported that RTC staff played a key role in disseminating traffic information to the public in connection with the March 7th procession from Santa Cruz to San Jose for the two fallen Santa Cruz Police Department officers. He said that this information is the type of information that would be disseminated through a 511 system.

22. Caltrans report and consider action items

Brandy Rider, Caltrans District 5, said that new signage will be installed statewide to inform motorists to move over or slow down through construction work areas, for emergency personnel, and when amber lights are flashing. She also reported that Caltrans will host a statewide litter removal day on April 25th.


Commissioners discussed the timeline for a study of Highway 17 access points, the need for press materials regarding the April 25th litter removal day, the completion of the Salinas Road Interchange project, and the restrictions of adding more traffic lanes on Highway 1 near the Moss Landing area.

23. Appointment of Commissioners to the Budget and Administration Personnel Committee – oral report Commission Alternate Schiffrin reported that Commission Chair Coonerty appointed Commissioners Montesino, Caput, Coonerty, Friend, Leopold and McPherson to the Budget and Administration Personnel Committee.

24. Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lane project update

RTC Resident Engineer Bruce Shewchuk reported that work is focusing on construction of the base of the new auxiliary lanes. He said that after both the northbound and southbound lanes are paved, the barriers will be shifted to divert traffic to the new lanes to create work space around the existing center column. He said two traffic lanes will be maintained in both directions through the construction area during peak periods; however, the La Fonda Bridge work will require partial closure of the highway on select nights for demolition of the center column and to set up the super structure for the horizontal portion of the new bridge. He said that the local community will be alerted about temporary closures and night work via e-news updates from RTC staff. Commissioners discussed concerns from local residents regarding the timeline for re-opening the La Fonda Bridge, public expectations regarding the timeline for completion of the entire auxiliary lane project, the effect of weather-related delays on the construction schedule, the possibility for further unforeseen construction delays, and whether there is an adequate sense of urgency for completing the project.

25. Project List for 2014 Transportation Plans

Transportation Planner Ginger Dykaar reported that staff is developing the project list or 'Action Element' of the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and related Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which includes a list of transportation needs in the region through 2035. She said the preliminary draft list is comprised of projects identified by project sponsors, RTC committees, and members of the public. She asked that Commissioners identify any additional projects for the list and said a public workshop will be held in May of this year to solicit additional public input. Commissioners discussed the importance of coordinating with the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the appropriate uses of STIP funds, the scenario planning process, criteria for prioritization of projects, expectations for public participation, the timeline for determining which projects belong on either the “constrained” or “unconstrained” lists, and the appropriate category listing for


the Coolidge Drive project. Commissioners directed staff to include a history of completed RTP projects. Jack Nelson, Santa Cruz resident, asked that the issues of sustainability and greenhouse gasses remain central to the project prioritization process. Brian Peoples, Aptos resident, asked that system requirements be the basis for plan scenarios. Amelia Conlen of People Power requested that a fund for general bike projects be added. Commissioner Norton asked that the Santa Cruz METRO consider allocating additional funding for express bus service to a variety of locations, like Capitola. Commissioner Leopold moved to approve the preliminary draft project list for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Plan with the addition of a $400,000 fund for county bike projects. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner McPherson left the meeting and was replaced by his alternate, Virginia Johnson. The motion passed unanimously.

26. Mobility Needs and Bus Use Survey of Aging and Disabled Adults Planning Intern David Pape summarized a report titled “Mobility Needs and Bus Use Survey of Aging and Disabled Adults Living in Santa Cruz County,” which was funded by a Caltrans Planning Grant. He said the report analyzed national trends and local travel patterns to determine how local seniors and disabled adults are currently traveling and what it would take to encourage greater transit use. Transportation Planner Grace Blakeslee said the full report is available on the RTC website, and that the report’s key findings will inform the RTC’s update to its regional transportation plan and the metropolitan transportation plan. Commissioners discussed whether carpooling was included in the survey, whether data on the use of Liftline shuttles was collected, and asked that a copy be made available to the board members of the Santa Cruz METRO. Commissioner Robinson moved and Commissioner Lane seconded to accept the report titled “Mobility Needs and Bus Use Survey of Aging and Disabled Adults Living in Santa Cruz County.” The motion passed unanimously.


27. Rail Motorcar Excursion on Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line

Executive Director George Dondero presented a video about the North American Railcar Operators Association (NARCOA), a non-profit organization that requested permission for a rail motorcar excursion on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line that will take place on May 4 and 5, 2013. Mr. Dondero said the event would entail one round trip from Davenport to Watsonville each day, and that approximately 20 to 50 individual motorcars were expected to participate. Commissioners discussed possible conflicts with local events during the proposed weekend, the protocol for stopping at road crossings, Santa Cruz & Monterey Bay Railway’s support for the event, responsibility for maintenance of vehicles during the excursion, appropriate parking locations for participant’s vehicles, and liability insurance issues.

Commissioner Randy Johnson moved and Commissioner Leopold seconded to:

1. Approve a rail motorcar excursion on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line for May 4 and 5, 2013 organized by the North American Railcar Operators Association (NARCOA) with the Santa Cruz & Monterey Bay (SC&MB) Railway;

2. Require that the RTC be fully indemnified by NARCOA and SC&MB Railway for the NARCOA excursion on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line; and

3. Require that NARCOA add the RTC on its liability policy as additional insured for the NARCOA excursion on the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line.

The motion passed unanimously.

28. Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 Proposed Budget – removed from the agenda

29. Adjourned to special meeting of the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies at 11:25 a.m.

30. Reconvened to regular RTC meeting at 11:32 a.m. 31. Review of items to be discussed in closed session

Commissioner Montesino said that anticipated litigation issues would be discussed in closed session.

32. Oral and written communications regarding closed session

Executive Director George Dondero said that the comments made at the


beginning of the meeting by Terry Rein, an attorney with Bosso Williams, were relevant to the closed session discussion. Commissioners adjourned to closed session at 11:35 a.m.

CLOSED SESSION

33. Conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation- significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 for one case

OPEN SESSION 34. Report on closed session

Commissioners returned to open session at 11:54 a.m. and there was no closed session report.

35. Meeting adjourned at 11:54 a.m. Next meetings

The next RTC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz, CA. The next Transportation Policy Workshop meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at the RTC Offices, 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA. Respectfully submitted, Jason Laning, Staff Attendees: Bruce Shewchuk Parsons Brinckerhoff Jack Nelson Resident Anais Schenk AMBAG Amelia Conlen People Power Mark McCumsey Caltrans Brian Peoples Resident Terry Rein Bosso Williams Chris Schneiter Santa Cruz Department of Public Works Dave McClain NARCOA Doug Stivers NARCOA

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0313 Special Mtg\2013-03-21-rtc-minutes.docx

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies

Minutes

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Santa Cruz City Council Chambers 809 Center Street

Santa Cruz, CA The meeting convened at 11:25 a.m. immediately following the completion of the special RTC meeting.

1. Oral communications - none 2. Additions or deletions to consent and regular agendas - none

CONSENT AGENDA

No consent items

REGULAR AGENDA 3. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Business Location Contractor Requirement

Transportation Planner Amy Naranjo said that the current FSP contract was going to expire and that it was time to distribute a request for proposals (RFP) for FSP services. Ms. Naranjo said that staff is recommending that the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) business location requirement be changed from within 30 minutes (at the speed limit) of the FSP beat that they patrol, to within 20 minutes (at the speed limit) of the FSP beat that they patrol. Commissioners discussed details of the 20-minute location requirement. Commissioner Alternate Schiffrin moved and Commissioner Randy Johnson seconded to approve the release of a request for proposals for FSP services and to change the FSP contractor business location requirement from within 30 minutes (at the speed limit) of the FSP beat that they patrol, to within 20 minutes (at the speed limit) of the FSP beat that they patrol. The motion passed unanimously.

SAFE Minutes March 21, 2013 2

4. Adjourned at 11:32 a.m.

Respectfully submitted, Jason Laning, Staff

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0313 Special Mtg\SAFE\2013-03-21-safe-minutes.docx

1


Interagency Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC)

DRAFT MINUTES

Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 p.m.

RTC, Conference Room 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA

ITAC MEMBERS PRESENT Frank Barron, County Planning Keith Boyle, City of Watsonville Community Development Teresa Buika, UCSC Ken Thomas, City of Santa Cruz Planning Claire Fliesler, Santa Cruz METRO Erich Friedrich, Santa Cruz METRO Steve Jesberg, City of Capitola Public Works Piet Canin, Ecology Action Mark McCumsey, Caltrans District 5 Maria Esther Rodriguez, City of Watsonville Public Works Anais Schenk, AMBAG Chris Schneiter, City of Santa Cruz Public Works Susan Westman, City of Capitola Community Development Steve Wiesner, County Public Works Majid Yamin, City of Scotts Valley Public Works and Planning Proxy Scott Wood, California Highway Patrol (Ex-Officio) STAFF PRESENT Grace Blakeslee Ginger Dykaar Rachel Moriconi

OTHERS PRESENT Amelia Conlen, People Power Mark Dettle, City of Santa Cruz Public Works Kathy DiGrazia, Caltrans District 5 – by phone for item 11 Donn Miyahara, Caltrans District 5 – by phone for item 11 Ben Noble, The Planning Center/DC&E Eric Panzer, The Planning Center/DC&E Garin Schneider, Caltrans District 5 – by phone for item 11

1. Call to Order – Chair Chris Schneiter called the meeting to order at 1:33pm.

2. Introductions – Self introductions were made. 3. Oral communications – None 4. Changes to consent and regular agendas – Maps and Place Types matrix distributed for Item 9.

CONSENT AGENDA (Rodriguez/Wiesner) approved (Buika and Schneiter abstained) 5. Approved minutes of the January 17, 2013 ITAC meeting 6. Received List of Projects Approved for Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds 7. Received notice regarding Bicycle Transportation Account program

2

REGULAR AGENDA 8. Status of ongoing transportation projects, programs, studies and planning documents - Verbal

updates from project sponsors UCSC: Teresa Buika reported that the University is working on the Electric Vehicle Charging Station at the Core West parking lot. Santa Cruz METRO: Erich Friedrich reported that bus schedule changes start March 14, including expanded Highway 17 Express Bus service and evening service through Live Oak. Metro will be submitting a Caltrans Planning Grant application with Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) for a data analysis intern. Assemblyman Mark Stone has also introduced legislation that would allow Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) and Metro to explore driving buses on highway shoulders. Metro will be issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design of the joint project with the City of Santa Cruz for upgrading Pacific Station. Metro will also be hiring a consultant to develop a Short Range Transit Plan.

Watsonville: Maria Rodriguez wished everyone “Happy Engineers Week”. She reported that Watsonville is going out to bid for its Highway Safety Improvement Program-funded (HSIP) signal upgrades and Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)-funded curb ramps. Watsonville is also going out to bid for a consultant to design the Roundabout at Clifford/Pennsylvania. Work also continues on studies for the Harkins Slough/Highway 1 Interchange.

County of Santa Cruz: Steve Wiesner reported that repairs to East Zayante at PM 2.2 are done. The traffic signal at Lockwood Lane and Graham Hill Road will go live in early March.

Ecology Action: Piet Canin reported that Ecology Action is working with the City of Santa Cruz on the Complete Streets plan for schools, which will contain infrastructure and program recommendations. He also suggested local agencies participate in a road safety workshop on February 26 hosted by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition. (RTC staff subsequently forwarded information on the workshop to ITAC members and other meeting attendees.)

Caltrans: Mark McCumsey encouraged ITAC members to attend upcoming workshops on the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Caltrans Planning grants. He also invited attendees to review and comment on the State Rail Plan by March 11 and recommended agencies review the California Interregional Blueprint report. (Following the meeting RTC staff forwarded links to the Planning Grants, Safety Grant Program, Interregional Blueprint, and State Rail Plan web pages to ITAC members and other meeting attendees.)

Capitola: Steve Jesberg reported that the comment period recently closed on the Negative Declaration for the Lower Pacific Cove Parking Lot project which will serve the Village. RTC: Rachel Moriconi reported that the RTC awarded a construction management contract for the Rail Improvement project and approved projects to receive over $5 million in Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. Santa Cruz: Chris Schneiter reported that Santa Cruz is working on construction of downtown electric vehicle charging stations. The River Street parking structure is being converted to a pay lot.

3

9. Draft Sustainable Communities Strategy Base Case Land Use Scenario

Anais Schenk, AMBAG Planner, reported that AMBAG is finishing the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Base Case Scenario based on comments received from local jurisdictions. She reviewed the next steps towards development of the SCS. Ben Noble of the Planning Center reminded members that the Land Use Scenario planning is part of SB375 implementation, identifying how changes in regional development patterns could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Updated Base Case Scenario maps were distributed and Planning Center staff highlighted changes to the maps that have been made based on comments received. A matrix of characteristics of different “place types” was also distributed. In response to a question from Chris Schneiter, Mr. Noble noted that the maps only include place type designations for areas in the urban service boundary. Members requested additional changes to place type designations for several areas. The Base Case Scenario is based on build out of existing General Plans, with the exception of areas where changes in development patterns are unlikely in the next 20 years. Next, alternate development and transportation scenarios from the Base Case will be developed. Alternatives would include the County of Santa Cruz Transit Corridor Plan, increased development along the coastal rail corridor, increased transit headways, and alternative scenarios for where new housing/density and new employment is located. In response to a question from Ken Thomas, Anais Schenk noted that once TAZ disaggregation and regional forecast numbers are inputted into the regional travel demand model, greenhouse gas emission estimates will be developed for the Base Case, followed by testing how the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would change under various scenarios. Piet Canin noted that an increase in electric vehicle use will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Schenk noted that for SB375 the focus is on how much GHG emissions can be reduced through changes in how much people drive, rather than changes in vehicle fleets. Frank Barron recommended changes to the place type descriptions to make the characteristics more flexible. Ms. Schenk reported that AMBAG will reach out to stakeholders and the public this spring/summer. The SCS is scheduled for adoption as a component of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in June 2014.

10. Complete Streets Assessment Update Grace Blakeslee, RTC Transportation Planner, reported that as part of the transportation component of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), RTC staff is working with local jurisdictions to conduct a complete streets gaps analysis for several areas. The analysis will identify additional projects that should be included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project list. She requested that project sponsors identify any areas that should be evaluated in addition to those listed in Attachment 2 of the staff report. She also requested input on Attachment 1 of the staff report, identifying complete streets components. She noted that transportation planning agencies in Monterey Bay area are also working on guidelines for complete streets that could serve as a tool for local jurisdictions. In response to questions from Amelia Cohen, Ms. Blakeslee noted that once the guidelines are established they will not prescribe what is needed in different place types, but rather recommend certain types of attributes and provide information on some of the tradeoffs. In some instances the analysis may recommend putting bicycle and pedestrian facilities on alternates to arterial roadways. Ms. Blakeslee noted that staff resources are limited so the

4

analysis will not cover all travel corridors. Frank Barron recommended that the analysis look at the Soquel corridor across jurisdictional lines. Committee members discussed transportation deficiencies and challenges in Soquel Village, noting parking, traffic congestion, and bicycle facility needs. Piet Canin agreed to collaborate with Ms. Blakeslee on Ecology Action’s analysis of complete streets near schools.

11. Caltrans Local Assistance Updates The Committee received verbal updates by telephone from Caltrans District 5 staff Kathy DiGrazia, Garin Schneider, and Donn Miyahara regarding various Caltrans programs and policy changes. Kathy DiGrazia, ADA Engineer District 5, reported that Caltrans is working to ensure projects on the state highway system are ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. Caltrans has developed a SHOPP ADA infrastructure program and transition plan. Statewide Caltrans is spending approximately $25 million per year on ADA upgrades, which includes curb ramps and other facilities scheduled for construction 2015-2017 in Santa Cruz County (list of locations was subsequently emailed to ITAC members). If a local agency is doing a project that requires an encroachment permit from Caltrans, that project must also meet ADA requirements. ITAC members discussed opportunities to partner with Caltrans for pedestrian upgrades through cooperative agreements. Ms. DiGrazia noted that if a grievance is filed, an agency has 90 days to respond. Members should ensure that their ADA Transition Plans are up-to-date. She agreed to return to ITAC yearly to provide updated information. Garin Schneider reported that MAP – 21 revised “Buy America” requirements. Under the new rules if any part of a project uses federal funds, the entire project must follow Buy America specifications. For multi-phased projects where just one phase is funded with federal highway funds, all phases must follow the federal Buy America provisions. He noted that utilities have been an issue statewide which Caltrans is working with FHWA to address. Garin Schneider also reported on the new ProRata/Lump Sum Reimbursement designation that local agencies will need to use when obligating federal funds. He also reported that there are new design requirements for projects on the National Highway System (NHS). He urged agencies to review the enhanced NHS roadway list, which now includes several local arterials and bridges. He also encouraged agencies to attend trainings on the upcoming Highway Safety Improvement Program grant cycle. This will be the largest call for safety projects on local roads and all agencies were encouraged to submit applications.

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. The next ITAC meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM in the SCCRTC Conference Room, 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA. Minutes prepared by: Rachel Moriconi

S:\ITAC\2013\Feb2013\Feb13ITACmin.doc

1

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s

BICYCLE COMMITTEE

Minutes – Draft

Monday, March 11, 2013 6:00 pm

1. Call to Order at 6:05pm 2. Introductions

3. Announcements – Cory Caletti, RTC staff to the Bicycle Committee, announcement that Bikes May Use Full Land and Shared Lane Pavement Markings (aka Sharrows) have been installed on Old San Jose Road and on Felton Empire Grade. Letters and phone calls of support and opposition to the signs and marking on Old San Jose Road were received by both RTC staff and Commissioner Leopold’s office. The signs have been defaced but subsequently cleaned-up.

Members Present: Kem Akol, District 1 Holly Tyler, District 1 (Alt.) David Casterson, District 2, Chair Peter Scott, District 3 Will Menchine, District 3 (Alt.) Rick Hyman, District 5 Bill Fieberling, City of Santa Cruz Andy Ward, City of Capitola, Vice-Chair Daniel Kostelec, City of Capitola (Alt.) Lex Rau, City of Scotts Valley Leo Jed, CTSC Nick Mucha, Bike to Work Staff: Cory Caletti, Senior Transportation Planner Ginger Dykaar, Transportation Planner Kim Shultz, Senior Transportation Planner Grace Blakeslee, Senior Transportation Planner

Unexcused Absences: Excused Absences: Eric Horton, District 2 (Alt.) Carlos Garza, City of Santa Cruz (Alt.) Gary Milburn, City of Scotts Valley (Alt.) Myrna Sherman, City of Watsonville Piet Canin, Ecology Action/Bike-to-Work Jim Langley, CTSC (Alt.) Vacancies: District 4 – Voting and Alternate District 5 – Alternate City of Watsonville – Alternate Guests: Micah Posner, City of Santa Cruz Council member Amelia Conlen, People Power Theresia Rogerson, CTSC Katie LeBaron, CTSC Ryan Heywood, former UCSC student Suzanne Sarro, RTC consultant

RTC Office 1523 Pacific Ave

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

2

Ms. Caletti also announced that the Sharrows in City of Capitola and City of Scotts Valley are fading and representatives of those jurisdictions may want to inquire into re-stenciling schedules. Finally, she announced that a number of three-year terms on the Bike Committee will expire at the end March and re-appointments are in progress.

4. Oral Communications – None

5. Additions or deletions to consent and regular agendas – Councilmember Micah Posner asked the Committee to provide feedback on a grant that the City of Santa Cruz is pursuing. Chair Casterson agendized the items as #10a to follow the Complete Streets discussion. Will Menchine requested that the Bike Com discuss improvements needed to the East Cliff Drive multi-use path in the westbound direction and to make a recommendation regarding the City of Santa Cruz’s Bike and Pedestrian Subcommittee that has been on hiatus for a number of years. Chair Casterson indicated that those items would be taken up as part of the Member Updates Related to Committee Functions agenda item.

CONSENT AGENDA

A motion (Jed/Fieberling) to approve the consent agenda as amended passed unanimously. 6. Approved draft minutes of the January 14, 2013 Bicycle Committee meeting 7. Accepted Bicycle Committee roster 8. Accepted summary of Bicycle Hazard Reports 9. Accepted announcement regarding no call for projects for Bicycle Transportation

Account funds for the fiscal year 13/14

REGULAR AGENDA 10. Complete Street Analysis and the Sustainable Communities Strategy – Grace

Blakeslee, RTC Senior Transportation Planner, summarized the staff report. As part of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, the existing transportation network is being analyzed with the goal of identifying ways to encourage the use of alternative modes, reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Blakeslee asked for Committee input on locations and types of bicycle facilities to be consider as part of the complete streets assessment. She also indicated that a set of guidelines will be developed to implement a local Complete Streets approach. Members provided input into areas proposed for evaluation and assessment elements. She asked that members also email her with additional input. Ms. Blakeslee plans to return to a future Bicycle Committee to report on information gathered and discuss next steps.

10a.Community Block Grant proposal – City of Santa Cruz Council Member Micah Posner announced that a staff recommendation will be considered by the City Council to apply for a Caltrans Community Block grant for the San Lorenzo River ramp that will provide access from the Beach St bikeway to the current pedestrian bridge. He asked for feedback on whether this project is a high priority given all the other projects the Committee would like to see developed. The Committee indicated support for the project and for the submission of an application for the grant in question. Council member Posner thanked members for their feedback.

3

11. 2010 Bicyclist Injuries and Fatalities for Santa Cruz County Report and 2012 Bicycle Safety Observation Study – Theresia Rogerson, Community Traffic Safety Coalition staff, summarized the Bicycle Injuries and Fatalities Report and received input from Committee members regarding ways to improve the report. Namely, Committee members indicated the rating, which is based on number of injuries and fatalities per 100,000 population rather than number of bicycle riders, is misleading and should be de-emphasized and qualified. Ms. Rogerson then went on to present the findings of the multi-year Observation Study, the changes in trends and the volunteer assistance it largely depends on. Feedback was provided and a sign-up sheet for the Spring observation that is coming up was circulated.

12. May 2012 RTC Bicycle Count Project – Ginger Dykaar, RTC Transportation Planner

and Ryan Heywood, former UCSC IDEASS Student, presented the findings of the RTC’s Bicycle Count Project. Information presented included details and reasoning behind the national data collection method used; how the count was coordinated with the CTSC observation; pedestrian and vehicle counts simultaneously conducted to ascertain mode split; and recommendations for count methodology for any future counts taken within Santa Cruz County. Members asked questions regarding count methodology and other details, and expressed gratitude to Mr. Heywood for assisting staff in getting the count project off the ground.

13. Highway 1 Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing at Chanticleer Avenue Update – Kim Shultz, RTC Senior Transportation Planner and Suzanne Sarro, RTC Consultant, described the preliminary designs of the planned Highway 1 Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing project at Chanticleer Avenue. Mr. Shultz and Ms. Sarro reminded members that they attended the committee meeting a year ago, compiled feedback received, and re-worked the overcrossing design in response to comments provided. The current design allows for bicyclists to ride on the overpass and would not require dismounting as was previously the case. Members expressed much appreciation for the re-design but voiced concern about the fact that the south side (or ocean side) approach to the overcrossing would require dismounting to cross intersections. A motion was made (Hyman/Akol) to request that the design be further enhanced to provide access via safe and legal bicycle riding maneuvers. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Shultz and Ms. Sarro indicated that a Draft Environmental Impact Report is planned for release in January, 2014 and that the Committee is encouraged to provide feedback.

14. Member updates related to Committee functions – Will Menchine asked the Bicycle

Committee to consider City of Santa Cruz’s staff recommendation to not reinstate its Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee. City of Santa Cruz staff holds the view that the RTC Bicycle Committee serves the same function as the City’s committee and therefore, the City’s committee is not needed. A motion was made (Scott/Jed) to write a letter to the City of Santa Cruz Council urging them to reinstate the bike/ped subcommittee. Considerations presented were that many bike/ped projects to be reviewed that are too detailed for the amount of time the RTC’s Bicycle Committee has available and may not hold enough regional significance, and that the RTC’s Bicycle Committee reduced meeting schedule barely allows time to adequately review the items it is charged with. The motion passed unanimously.

Will Menchine enumerated the difficulties of bicycle and pedestrian traffic flow on the westbound direction of the East Cliff Driver multi-use path between 32nd and 41st Avenues. Cory Caletti suggested that she ask County Public Works to attend a future meeting to have a well-rounded discussion of possible solutions. It was

4

recommended that Commissioner Leopold’s aide, Dave Reid, be asked to attend that meeting since he has met with constituents on the subject and was also formerly involved with the project when the Redevelopment Agency headed design and construction. An Ad-Hoc Committee, comprised of Will Menchine, Nick Mucha and Kem Akol, was formed to conduct a field trip and brainstorm possible solutions to present to Public Works. Additional updates provided include: - The Arana Gulch Broadway/Brommer bicycle and pedestrian path will break

ground this upcoming fall. - Rick Hyman reported that the RTC will be considering the FY 13/14 budget at the

next RTC meeting and that this would be an appropriate time to request staffing increases for bicycle planning and committee meetings. A motion was made (Akol/Jed) to have Chair Casterson attend the next RTC meeting and request that a quarter time full time equivalent (FTE) Senior Transportation Planner be funded to offset previous reductions made to Bicycle Committee staffing resources and meeting frequency.

- At the request of member Kem Akol, a motion was made (Akol/Scott) to write a letter to UC Santa Cruz requesting a speed study on Coolidge Drive to ascertain whether driving speeds exceed the speed limit. The motion passed unanimously.

- Peter Scott requested input into whether he should request that UC Santa Cruz’s Transportation and Parking Services regarding faculty and employee mode choice to work. Committee members indicated that the information would be valuable.

- Members agreed to meet again at the earlier start time of 6pm. The Monday, April 8th Bicycle Committee will therefore meet again at 6pm.

Adjourned: 9pm NEXT MEETING: The next Bicycle Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 8, 2013 from 6:00pm to 8:30pm at the RTC office, 1523 Pacific Ave, Santa Cruz, CA. Minutes respectfully prepared and submitted by: Cory Caletti, Senior Transportation Planner

\\Rtcserv2\shared\Bike\Committee\BC2013\BCMarch13\BCMinutes_Draft_March11-13.docx

1

JOINT MEETING OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SYSTEMS (TOS) OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

AND SAFE ON 17 TASK FORCE

DRAFT MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2013

10:00-12:00

TOS Oversight Committee and Safe on 17 Task Force Meeting Participants Captain Joe Lundy, San Jose CHP Ramin Bolourchian, Caltrans District 4 TMC Lt Scott Wood, Santa Cruz CHP Officer Cliff Inman, Santa Cruz CHP Susana Cruz, Caltrans District 5 Public Affairs Russell Ellingworth, Caltrans District 5 Maintenance Sarah Jackson, Santa Cruz CHP Marshall Ballard, Valley Transit Authority Siobhan Saunders, Caltrans District 5 Construction Tom Barnett, Caltrans District 5 Maintenance Lt. Les Bishop, San Jose CHP Officer John Darling, San Jose CHP Joanna Fox, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Anika Jesi, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Deb Larson, Caltrans District 5, Traffic Safety Mark Ballentine, Caltrans District 5, Traffic Safety Jacques Van Zeventer, Caltrans District 5 Ramona Turner, Santa Cruz Sentinel Jarret Winter, Santa Clara County Fire Department Frances Herbert, representing Senator Beall, 15th District Susan Lowery, County of Santa Clara Public Health, Traffic Safe Communities Network Cliff Barber, American Civil Constructors West Coast Tegan Speiser, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Ginger Dykaar, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission 1. Introductions – Introductions were made 2. Additions or Deletions to the Agenda – none. 3. Reviewed and Accepted Minutes of the September 12, 2012 Joint TOS Oversight

Committee and Safe on 17 Meeting

San Jose California Highway Patrol 2020 Junction Ave

San Jose, CA 95131

2

Ginger Dykaar reported an email sent from Jim Richardson (Caltrans D4 TMC) regarding an item in the minutes that a sigalert should not be issued for a 30 minute delay as written in the minutes but should be sent out if a lane is anticipated to be blocked for more than 30 minutes. He stressed the importance of CHP field units getting the information out to TMC when a sigalert is needed as soon as possible so the motoring public is informed. Lt Wood has encouraged Officers in Santa Cruz to issue sigalerts even if incident may not end up having lane blocked for 30 minutes or more. Lt Wood voiced concern over not being able to provide sigalerts for feeder roads into the highways. One example is Old San Jose Rd. Lt Wood would like to revisit this decision with TMC. 4. Received Information Items

Ginger Dykaar presented the following items. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program Update – Funding has been secured for FSP for Hwy 1 and 17 for FY 12/13. A new procurement process has begun to contract tow operators for FSP service on Highway 17 and on Highway 1 for the next contract period. Potential bidders can bid on providing FSP service for either Highway 1 or Highway 17 or both. Staff will release a request for proposals (RFP) for FSP service on Highway 1 and 17 this month. An Evaluation Committee will be reviewing the proposals and recommending a bidder to our board at the June 2013 RTC meeting. Monterey Bay Area 511 Planning Study Update – An Implementation Plan for 511 Traveler Information will use the Caltrans QuickMap for the traffic map page in addition to multimodal traveler information such as rideshare, transit trip planning, bike/ped resources and emergency information. A 511 system can be a central location to get information out to the public about the travel resources that are available in Santa Cruz County including static, real time and emergency information. The SCPD memorial procession was a timely example of how our agencies can partner together to provide traveler information to the public. Articles/Public Feedback – There were not many articles this past 6 months. There were a couple of letters from the public that have been addressed by Caltrans. 5. Received Update on California Highway Patrol Safe on 17 Program Statistics and

Public Information Efforts Lt. Bishop stated that overall for the year, total collisions were down but there was one fatality. June was the busiest month for collisions and citations; therefore, June will be the focus of enforcement efforts. San Jose CHP continues to provide safety information on Hwy 17 at public affair events.

3

Officer Jackson discussed the collision and citation statistics for the Santa Cruz County side of Hwy 17. There was one fatality on the Santa Cruz side in March, 2012. Collisions were higher in comparison to 2011 during summer and rainy months. There was a 77% reduction in collisions in the Laurel Curve area after the improvements were put in place (median barrier, HFST and dynamic curve warning sign) from March thru December 2012 as compared to prior years. There have been no reported collisions from u-turns anywhere on Hwy 17 on the Santa Cruz County side. Ginger Dykaar reviewed how much funding is left for extra enforcement for Hwy 17 for both Santa Cruz CHP and San Jose CHP. There was $32k for San Jose and $66k for Santa Cruz at the end of 2012. By now it is likely that San Jose is down to about $20k and Santa Cruz down to $53k for remaining quarter, if a similar enforcement schedule to the previous part of the year has been maintained. Santa Cruz can carry over funds into the next fiscal year but San Jose cannot. Officer Darling stated that San Jose is on target to spend the $50,000 for extra enforcement by the end of the fiscal year.

6. Received Major Incident Review Sarah Jackson discussed how CHP was in charge of arranging the memorial procession for the 2 Santa Cruz Police Department Officers that were killed in the line of duty. CHP provided information to the community through twitter feeds of the procession. CHP coordinated with RTC to help get information out to the public about the traffic impacts and where to go to get additional information about the procession. Tegan Speiser discussed how RTC supported the CHP in providing information to the public in preparation for and during the memorial procession through website and Facebook posts, and eNews. RTC can work with partner agencies to provide best information to public such as traffic impacts, alternative modes, alternative routes, and where to get real time information (Caltrans Quickmap, MTC 511, Nixle Alerts, Twitter, Facebook etc...). Methods RTC currently has available in getting information out to the public are Email news, posts on RTC website and Commute Solutions website, RTC Facebook and Twitter. Lt Wood wondered what we can learn from this event. He suggested that it would be best to get information out 4 to 5 days ahead of time for events when possible. Lt Bishop stated that if information goes out 2 days prior, people are more likely to remember the information. Tegan spoke of the need for a protocol for such events and the need to better understand the role that RTC can play to support partner agencies.

7. Received Caltrans District 5 Highway 17 Project Update Siobhan reviewed Caltrans projects on Hwy 17. The Guardrail Improvement Project will be re-advertised this summer as the first contractor went bankrupt. The Hwy 17 Summit Slide Repair project will start up again this month as it was suspended over the winter.

4

Laurel Curve Update – Deb Larson and Mark Ballentine stated that the number of collisions on the SB side of the highway on Laurel Curve has reduced substantially since Spring 2012 when the median barrier, high friction surface treatment (HFST), and dynamic curve warning sign were added. The southbound collisions in the vicinity of Laurel Curve have reduced from approximately 90 plus collisions in prior 3 years to 1 collision this past winter. They showed a video of the HFST installation on Hwy 17 near Laurel Rd. The video showed the application process as well as the methods for measuring the amount of friction on this surface that will be evaluated over time. FHWA tested the HFST at 20 locations nationwide and will be putting out a report that shows the results of their testing. It is unknown when the report will be available. Guardrail/Drainage Projects – Siobhan Saunders discussed the safety projects on Hwy 17. The Santa’s Village Road project has been completed. Vine Hill Wet Weather project has been completed except for fixing lane markings and other minor issues. Hwy 17 Summit Rd slide repair work will start this fall to put in a retaining wall but should not require lane closures. The Guardrail Improvement Project will be re-advertised this fall as the previous contractor went bankrupt. Hwy 17 Access Management Plan – Brandy Rider was unable to attend the meeting to provide update. 8. Received Caltrans District 4 Highway 17 Project Update Wet Pavement Project – Ginger Dykaar representing Shawn Enjily stated that all the roadway work for the Wet Pavement Project has been completed. The only remaining work is to line the culverts that are under the roadway for water quality purposes. The work will be performed in June of 2013. There may be minimal lane closures to set up equipment for the lining of the pipes. 9. Received Traffic Operations Systems Updates TMC Update - Ramin Bolourchian asked if anyone sees any changeable message signs that are malfunctioning to please let him know. He stated that the communication software installation at the TMC has been finalized for the changeable message signs. It has not yet been finalized for all equipment but that this will not affect the transportation system operations in Santa Cruz County. Communications Update – Nicole Stewart was not able to attend meeting to provide an update. QuickMap Update - Jacques Van Zeventer from Caltrans District 5 discussed “QuickMap”, the Caltrans traffic map page that contains real-time traffic speed data, lane closures, CHP incidents, CCTV images and CMS sign messages. He reported that there are many traffic detectors (primarily on Hwy 1 due to reliable DSL connections) that are reporting to PeMS and

1

Santa Cruz County

Regional Transportation Commission

Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes – Draft

Tuesday, April 9, 2013, 1:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order at 1:34 pm 2. Introductions

Members Present: Alternates Present: Hal Anjo, Potential Bus Rider April Warnock, Metro ParaCruz Kirk Ance, CTSA Lift Line Debbi Brooks, Volunteer Center Excused Absences: John Daugherty, Metro Transit Veronica Elsea, 3rd District Sally French, Soc. Serv. Provider-Disabled (HOPE)

Lisa Berkowitz, CTSA (Community Bridges) RTC Staff Present: Cathy Judd

Clay Kempf, Social Services Provider Mike Molesky, Social Service Provider Disabled

Karena Pushnik

Patti Lou Shevlin, 1st District Others Present: Thomas Hiltner, Metro Staff Sara Schiffrin, La Posada Resident

3. Oral Communications - None 4. Additions or deletions to consent and regular agendas

Karena Pushnik supplied a replacement page for Item 8, an add-on page for Item 13, a replacement page for Item 15, add-on pages for Item 15, and add-on pages for Item 16.

Veronica Elsea requested Item 9 be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda.

Regional Transportation Commission, 1523 Pacific Ave, Santa Cruz

2

CONSENT AGENDA

Action: The motion (Elsea/Brooks) - - to approve the consent agenda as amended moving Item 9 to the Regular Agenda - - carries unanimously with Mike Molesky abstaining. 5. Approved Minutes from Feb 2013 meeting 6. Received Transportation Development Act (TDA) Revenues Report as of Mar 2013

7. Received RTC Highlights through Mar 2013

8. Received letter dated 3/27/13 from E&D TAC Chair to Community Bridges in support of

two grant applications

9. (moved from the Consent to Regular Agenda for discussion) Receive letter dated 1/31/13 from Supervisor/Commissioner Neal Coonerty to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District regarding restoration of bus service on Frederick Street in Santa Cruz City

10. Information Items

a. Mr. Roadshow writes about not driving

b. US Department of Transportation changing bike and pedestrian standards to

highlight safety 11. Received Agency Updates

a. Volunteer Center - 2nd Quarter TDA Report

b. Community Bridges serving as the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency c. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (Metro)

- Past Metro Reports d. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission e. Private Operators

REGULAR AGENDA

9. (moved from the Consent to Regular Agenda for discussion) Letter dated 1/31/13

from Supervisor/Commissioner Neal Coonerty to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District regarding restoration of bus service on Frederick Street in Santa Cruz City

Veronica Elsea requested more information about bus service reinstatement to Frederick

Street including:

• What is the process for evaluating and restoring bus service • What is happening to restore service to the Frederick Street and Gault

neighborhoods • How will the closure of the Dominican Rehabilitation Center impact the decision for

return of bus service • How will the issue of poor sidewalk conditions on Frederick Street be considered by

Metro

3

Tom Hiltner, Metro staff, said that Metro may have replied to Commissioner Coonerty’s support letter and, if so, a copy of that letter will be provided to the E&D TAC. Mr. Hiltner said Metro’s Service Planning & Review Committee received many requests to restore service and the committee is gathering ride information. Mr. Hiltner mentioned that Metro is ramping up to meet demand for service, is limited by the number of experienced and available drivers, and that the Service Planning & Review Committee presents plans to Metro’s Board to be considered, and will assess restoring service to La Posada. Mr. Hiltner will request that the committee leader supply an update to the E&D TAC. John Daugherty said that Erich Friedrich is the Service Planner on Metro staff and said that the Board will receive a report in August regarding return of service to La Posada. Mr. Hiltner confirmed that August is the soonest that the Metro Board would consider service reinstatement. Patty Shevlin voiced the importance of restoring service saying that two terrible hit and run accidents occurred at the corner of Frederick Street and Soquel while crossing Soquel to reach the closest bus stop. Ms. Shevlin suggested that the E&D TAC write a thank you letter to Commissioner Coonerty for his support letter to Metro.

Action: The motion (Shevlin/Molesky) - - for the E&D TAC to write a letter of thanks to Commissioner Coonerty for his letter of support for the return of bus service to Frederick Street - - carries unanimously with John Daugherty abstaining. 12. Nominations and Election of Chair and Vice Chair

John Daugherty gave an overview of the Chair and Vice-chair nomination process, reading voting procedures from the RTC’s bylaws. Members discussed:

• Term limits • If nominations could be heard at current meeting and decided upon at the next

regular meeting • Roll call versus private vote • Electing a slate of chair and vice-chair

Nominations were heard from Patty Shevlin and Hal Anjo for Mike Molesky for Chair. After discussion by members John Daugherty stepped aside and by acclamation announced Mike Molesky as the new Chair.

Nominations were also heard from Patty Shevlin, Veronica Elsea, and Hal Anjo for John Daugherty for Vice-chair and from John Daugherty for Veronica Elsea for Vice-chair.

Action: By roll call vote of 6 to 3, John Daugherty was elected Vice-chair. Action: The motion (Kempf/Molesky) - - for the E&D TAC to write a letter of thanks to Chair Daugherty and Vice-chair Elsea for their service on the E&D TAC - - carries unanimously.

4

13. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District TDA Claim

Karena Pushnik provided an overview of the TDA process and noted that the RTC had not yet officially adopted a budget, due to last minute changes in planning fund allocations from the Association for Monterey Bay Area Governments. She distributed a page with preliminary TDA recommendations that were less than 1% less than those included in the original claims prepared by TDA recipients. Tom Hiltner, Metro staff provided an overview of Metro’s TDA claim of $6.1 million in TDA funds to assist with operating the fixed route bus services and the American’s with Disabilities-mandated Paratransit service, ParaCruz. He indicated that the proposed reduction would amount to $43,309 which could impact service. The final TDA amount will be approved at the May 2 RTC meeting.

Action: The motion (Elsea/Kempf) - - to approve Metro’s TDA Claim contingent on the final budget and TDA amount decided on at the May 2 RTC meeting - - carries unanimously. 14. Lift Line TDA Claim

Kirk Ance, Community Bridges, gave an overview of the TDA Claim for $599,743 and noted that the agency took oversight of Elderday back in house. Members discussed:

• How Community Bridges meets increased needs and unmet demand • Ride statistics • Taxi script • Same day rides • Provision of out of county medical and veterans rides using grant funds • Number of vans provided for Elderday and funds available • Shifting funds/rides from previously identified higher priority unmet needs • Budget columns showing TDA funds and non-TDA funds, rather than match funds

The committee expressed concern about the decrease in medical rides and the sizable increase in TDA funding for Elderday. They also expressed concern that it appears that the core medical transportation services are funded with grants that may not always be available. The committee agreed that it would be prudent for Community Bridges to review their TDA claim and come back to the E&D TAC with a revised TDA plan.

Action: The motion (Elsea/Kempf) - - to continue the meeting to 4:00 pm - - carries unanimously. Action: The motion (Kempf/Elsea) - - to recommend that Lift Line modify its TDA proposal to address the highest priority unmet needs for TDA funds and provide the claim at a special meeting of the E&D TAC to be held on May 14 from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm - - carries unanimously. 15. Volunteer Center TDA Claim

Debbi Brooks, Volunteer Center, provided an overview of the Volunteer Center TDA Claim for $71,398 to provide 4600 one-way trips based on type and income. The final TDA amount will be approved at the May 2 RTC meeting.

Action: The motion (Elsea/Molesky) - - to approve the Volunteer Center TDA Claim contingent on the final TDA amount decided on at the May 2 RTC meeting - - carries unanimously with Debbi Brooks abstaining.

5

16. Section 5310 Grant Application review committee recommendations

Karena Pushnik gave an overview of the 5310 Grant Application and scores. Ms. Pushnik said that Community Bridges submitted a fund application for two ambulatory passenger minivans with ramps and 14 Mobile Data Computers (MDC). Community Bridges will strengthen their application to maximize their score and resubmit it to the RTC by April 15. Staff will review the application to ensure that the revisions are included.

Action: The motion (Kempf/Elsea) - - to recommend that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission approve the local review committee’s contingent scores Section 5310 fund application submitted by Community Bridges - - carries unanimously with Kirk Ance abstaining.

17. Pedestrian Safety Work Group Update

Veronica Elsea said that the Pedestrian Safety Work Group presentation to Metro regarding signs in buses was well received and Metro has approved the idea. Metro asked the Pedestrian Safety Work Group to submit a design for its approval. Ms. Elsea said the group is revising wording for its FAQ and will delay further presentations until the FAQ are reviewed by County Counsel. The Pedestrian Safety Work Group brochure “What Pedestrians and Motorist Want Each Other to Know” is being revised with a draft available in June. The brochure includes general and specific information for people with disabilities. Ms. Elsea mentioned the letter the group wrote to realtors regarding their signs on sidewalks. Karena Pushnik provided a presentation to the Association of Realtors with information about RTC projects and programs, as well as information about sidewalk maintenance and sidewalk signs. The next meeting of the Pedestrian Safety Work Group is on May 3 at 10:00 am in the RTC conference room. All are welcome to attend.

18. Monterey Mobility Advisory Committee Co-Meeting

Karena Pushnik said that she spoke with Tom Hicks of Monterey County’s Mobility Advisory Committee. Ms. Pushnik polled the E&D TAC committee about a joint meeting. Members confirmed their interest.

19. Adjourn – 4:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Judd, RTC Staff I:\E&DTAC\2013\04-Apr\Draft-Minutes-April-2013.docx


Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee

MINUTES

Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:30 pm

The meeting was called to order by Chair Schiffrin at 3:05 pm Members Present Commissioner John Leopold Commissioner Alternate Patrick Mulhearn Commissioner Greg Caput Commissioner Alternate Andy Schiffrin Commissioner Eduardo Montesino Commissioner Alternate Virginia Johnson RTC Staff George Dondero Luis Mendez Yesenia Parra

1. Introductions-Self introductions were made. 2. Additions or changes to consent and regular agenda-None 3. Oral communications

Bruce Holloway, resident of the San Lorenzo Valley, communicated that he discovered some ways to save money on CalPERS payments. CalPERS offers a 3.5% discount if an up-front annual payment is made for retirement benefits instead of making monthly payments throughout the year. This would be a savings of about $6,000 for the RTC. CalPERS retirement payments include payment for a side fund, which is financed by CalPERS at an interest rate of 7.5 %. The RTC has a side fund of $277,000 with a remaining term of 18 years. The RTC could finance the side fund differently with a lower interest rate and shorter terms to save money in the long run.

Santa Cruz County CAO’s Conference Room 701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz

Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee MINUTES February 14, 2013 Page | 2

I:\B&ACOM\Bap2013\0413\2013-04-11-Bap-Minutes.Docx

CONSENT AGENDA (Montesino, Leopold) unanimous

4. Approved minutes of the February 14, 2013 meeting

REGULAR AGENDA

5. Election of 2013 B&A/P Committee chair and vice-chair – oral report

Yesenia Parra, Administrative Services Officer reported that the RTC, at its March 21, 2013 meeting appointed members to the B&A/P Committee and per RTC bylaws a chair and vice-chair need to be elected. Commissioner Leopold moved and Commissioner Montesino seconded to elect Commission Alternate Schiffrin as Chair. Commissioner Schiffrin accepted the nomination. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Alternate Johnson moved and Commissioner Montesino seconded to elect Commissioner Leopold as vice-chair. Commissioner Leopold accepted the nomination. The motion passed unanimously.

6. Amendments to the FY2012-13 Budget & Work Program

Deputy Director Luis Mendez reported that the budget and work program amendments are primarily to ensure expenditures for FY2012-13 are correctly allocated in the appropriate budget year. Proposed amendments do not increase or decrease the overall expenditures and revenues for FY 2012-13. Commissioner Leopold moved and Commissioner Montesino seconded to accept the staff recommendation to approve the amended FY2012-13 Budget and Work Program. The motion passed unanimously

7. Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 Revised Proposed Budget

Deputy Director Luis Mendez reported that staff received information regarding a significant reduction in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Planning (PL) funds from AMBAG after the Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee had recommended that the RTC approve the proposed FY2013-14 budget. Mr. Mendez noted that traditionally, the RTC received $240,000 to $260, 00 FHWA PL funds from AMBAG based on a formula mutually established in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between AMBAG and the RTPAs. However, AMBAG plans to allocate to the only $100,000 in FHWA PL funds for FY2013-14, a significant reduction from previous years. Maura Twomey, AMBAG Executive Director, said that AMBAG had been notified by FHWA that distributing PL funds using a formula was not permitted. Mr. Mendez noted that the RTPAs have subsequently established cooperative agreements (CCA) with AMBAG. This cooperative agreement does not guarantee a set amount of



PL funds in the future. He also noted that AMBAG has also requested that the RTC contribute $57,500 towards the environmental review document for the metropolitan transportation plan. Mr. Mendez said that the proposed revised budget does not include a funding recommendation for the $57,500 contribution. Responding to Commissioner questions, Ms. Twomey said that AMBAG’s PL funds were being reduced significantly and that PL funds could only be used for programs or projects that meet federal planning priorities. She noted that qualifying criteria had become more stringent. Ms. Twomey also noted that AMBAG reviewed its budget and does not have sufficient funds to cover the EIR and must require the RTPA’s to contribute proportionately. Responding to a question, Executive Director George Dondero said that the RTC must complete an EIR to continue to receive state and federal funding for projects identified in the EIR. Les White, Executive Director of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) said that the budget for METRO had been prepared with the assumption that the TDA allocations were going to be in the amounts specified in the previously proposed FY2013-14 budget. He said that any cuts to TDA allocations would significantly affect transit service. Commissioners discussed the effect that the last minute FHWA PL funding reduction has on the RTC budget. They discussed the need to have AMBAG continue to fund the EIR, the need to work collaboratively with all jurisdictions and the need to review the RTC workload to determine if any projects should be shifted over to AMBAG. Peter Scott, Campaign for Sensible Transportation, said that given the SB375 mandates Santa Cruz METRO should be funded at the highest level possible to avoid service disruptions. Bruce Holloway, resident, said that if the agencies paid their CalPERS retirement bill in full in July, they would receive a discount which could then be used for other needs. Daniel Dodge, METRO Board Chair, asked the committee to postpone their decision on this budget item to allow jurisdictions to discuss other alternatives. Commissioner Alternate Mulhearn moved and Commissioner Alternate Johnson seconded to approve staff recommendation to cut the Sacramento Assistant budget line ($36,000) and use $60,000 in anticipated FY12-13 Transportation Development Act (TDA) surplus revenues. And to have the RTC Executive Director meet with the METRO Executive Director to find other alternatives to the TDA apportionment reductions. Commissioner Alternate Schiffrin asked the maker of the motion to modify the motion to: cut the Sacramento Assistant budget line ($36,000), use as much



of the anticipated FY2012-13 Transportation Development Act (TDA) surplus revenues to meet the FHWA PL funding reduction, keep the TDA apportionment amounts as previously proposed to the B&A/P committee at its February meeting, and, that the METRO General Manager and the RTC Executive Director meet with the AMBAG Executive Director before the fall budget amendment to discuss options for addressing the FHWA PL funding reduction. The maker and second of the original motion accepted Commissioner Alternate Schiffrin’s friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously.

8. Adjournment

The next Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. in the RTC conference room, 1523 Pacific Ave, Santa Cruz, CA Respectfully submitted, Yesenia Parra, Administrative Services Officer

ATTENDEES

Les White SCMTD Virginia Johnson Supervisor McPherson’s office Peter Scott Campaign for Sensible Transportation Bruce Holloway Santa Cruz Resident Daniel Dodge SCMTD Chair Rita Goel TAMC

AGENDA: May 2, 2013 TO: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Karena Pushnik, Senior Transportation Planner RE: FY 2013-14 Section 5310 Scores RECOMMENDATIONS The Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee (E/D TAC) and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) approve the attached resolution (Attachment 1

) for FY 2013-14 Section 5310 grant application scores confirming the scoring (Exhibit A) determined by the Local Review Committee (LRC) and approved by the Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND Federal Section 5310 funds are available to eligible entities for capital equipment for specialized transportation for seniors and people with disabilities. This grant is administered by Caltrans and allocated on a statewide competitive basis. Historically, Section 5310 funds have been a major source of funding for new paratransit vehicles and equipment to facilitate specialized transportation services in Santa Cruz County. DISCUSSION

This year, one Section 5310 grant application was received from Community Bridges for two ambulatory passenger minivans with ramps and fourteen mobile data computers. Community Bridges is designated as the local Consolidated Transportation Services Agency. A Local Review Committee -- designated by the E&D TAC and comprised of representatives from the Seniors Council, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, the E&D TAC, and the Regional Transportation Commission-- scored the application and suggested provisional scores if the application was strengthened. As in the past, the applicant had an opportunity to amend their applications based on the initial review by the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and their Local Reivew Committee. At their April 9 meeting, the Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee (E/D TAC) concurred with the recommended provisional scores. Staff received the revised application and confirmed that all of the amendments were included.

FY 2011-12 Section 5310 Scores Page 2

Attached are excerpts from the application summarizing the purpose and need for the vehicles and equipment (Attachment 1

). Included in Attachment 1 are two exhibits required by Caltrans. Exhibit A shows the project scores on the Regional Priority List and Exhibit B is the Section 5310 (16) Certification and Assurance - Form 2 showing that all program applications meet applicable federal statutory and program regulations.

The E&D TAC and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission adopt, by resolution, scores for the 2013 Section 5310 Grant Application from Community Bridges and forward the materials to Caltrans. Caltrans will rank the projects in order of the highest scored projects and check scores for those projects up to the limit of available funds. There will be an appeals process and the final scores will be formally adopted by the California Transportation Commission. Based on funding available, recipients of Section 5310 funds will be notified in fall.

SUMMARY

Community Bridges has applied for Section 5310 funds for vehicles and equipment that will enrich the accessible transportation services provided to the community. The Section 5310 grant is one method to bring in much needed equipment for paratransit operations in Santa Cruz County, especially for those who don’t qualify for ParaCruz due to their income, location or size. These funds are allocated on a competitive rather than formula basis, and this is one of the major sources of funding for specialized transportation vehicles for our region. The Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission approve, by resolution, the Section 5310 grant application scores for the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency/Community Bridges.

1. Resolution Adopting the FY 2013-14 Section 5310 Scores for Santa Cruz County

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Section 5310 FY13-14 Project Rating Worksheet Exhibit B: MPO/RTPA Section 5310 Certification and Assurances

2. Excerpt from Section 5310 Grant Application from Community Bridges

I:\E&DTAC\SECT5310\2013\S5310RTC2013.DOC

Item Cost Each Quantity Total Cost Initial Score

Potential Score

Ambulatory 5-passenger Minivan

$ 45,000 2 $ 90,000 73 80

Mobile Data Computers $2,495 14 $ 34,930 68 80

FY 2013-14 Section 5310- Santa Cruz County Page 1

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on the date of May 2, 2013

on the motion of Commissioner duly seconded by Commissioner

A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SANTA CRUZ COUNTY’S SCORING OF FY 2013-15 SECTION 5310 GRANT APPLICATIONS

WHEREAS the Regional Transportation Commission serves as the Regional

Transportation Planning Agency for Santa Cruz County; WHEREAS the Regional Transportation Commission is charged with oversight

of reviewing and scoring local applications for the Section 5310 grant program for specialized transportation;

WHEREAS one applications were received for FY 2013-14 from the

Consolidated Transportation Services Agency/Community Bridges for vehicles and mobile data computers, equipment related to the provision of specialized transportation services;

WHEREAS the Local Review Committee met on April 3, 2013 to score the

applications, the Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee met on April 9, 2013 to review their recommendation, and the Commission held their regularly noticed meeting on May 2, 2013 to approve the final scores for local Section 5310 applications;

WHEREAS the projects are consistent with the most current adopted Regional

Transportation Plan (2010); THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: 1. The scores drafted by the Local Review Committee and recommended by

the Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee are hereby adopted.

2. The projects in Exhibit A shall be forwarded to Caltrans to be included by

the Statewide Review Committee into the Statewide Prioritized List. 3. The Regional Transportation Planning agency Certification and Assurance

in Exhibit B shall be forwarded to Caltrans assuring that the projects meet the requirements and conditions of 49 U.S.C, that the recommendations were included in the region’s public participation process and that, by this resolution, the projects are consistent with the local Regional Transportation Plan.

FY 2013-14 Section 5310- Santa Cruz County Page 2

AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS

______________________________ Neal Coonerty, Chair

ATTEST: ____________________________ George Dondero, Secretary Exhibit A: Section 5310 Project Rating Worksheet Exhibit B: MPO/RTPA Section 5310 Certification and Assurances Distribution: Caltrans HQ

Community Bridges AMBAG

S:\RESOLUTI\2013\RES0513\S-5310-FY13-14.doc

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

FROM: Ginger Dykaar, Transportation Planner and Ryan Heywood, previous UCSC IDEASS Student

RE: Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report

RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission accept the Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report.

BACKGROUND The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) partnered with the County of Santa Cruz Community Traffic Safety Coalition (CTSC) and the University of California Santa Cruz Impact Designs: Engineering and Sustainability through Student Service (IDEASS) program to perform bicycle and pedestrian counts throughout the county in May 2012. The Community Traffic Safety Coalition has performed seven bicycle safety observation surveys and counts at approximately 40 locations over the past ten years. In addition to the bicycle observation surveys conducted by the CTSC in 2012, the RTC used the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation (NBPD) methodology for counting both bicyclists and pedestrians at 10 of the locations. Motor vehicle counts were also collected at these 10 locations and at the same time as the bicyclist and pedestrian counts to provide mode split data.

DISCUSSION The key findings from the May 2012 study are:

• The largest number of bicyclists observed were at intersections in the City of Santa Cruz and Mid-county, including Capitola

• The three intersections with the greatest number of bicyclists were Bay Dr. and High St. (UCSC); Seabright Ave. and Murray St. (Santa Cruz); and Front St. and Laurel St. (downtown Santa Cruz)

• There is an overall upward trend over the last 10 years in the bicycle ridership for Santa Cruz County

• Average mode share at the 20 locations measured was 93.6% motor vehicle, 2.7% bike and 3.7% pedestrian.

• The highest bicycle mode share (10.9%) was on Bay Dr. (south of High St.) in the City of Santa Cruz.

• The highest pedestrian mode share (20.2%) was on Maple Ave. (west of Union St.) in the City of Watsonville.

Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report Page 2 Future counts that are taken within Santa Cruz County would be most comparable to past counts if the following recommendations are followed. Bicycle Counts

• Take commute, weekend and school counts at 46 locations throughout Santa Cruz County as currently defined by Community Traffic Safety Coalition

• Conduct commute counts from 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday • Conduct School counts for 1 hour starting 45 minutes before school starts on

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday • Conduct weekend counts from 11-1 pm on Saturday (preferably) or Sunday • Take counts annually mid-May to end of May (with consideration for other

events such as Bike to Work/School week and before end of semester at UCSC and Cabrillo)

• Counts should tally the number of people on bicycles entering the intersection from each direction

• Bicycle counts should include electric motorized bicycles with pedals and not include people walking their bikes

Mode Split Counts (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle)

• Conduct motor vehicle hose counts on 2 of the 4 roads entering the 10 intersection locations, as done in 2012

• Conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts at the 10 intersections to indicate not only the direction the bicyclist or pedestrian is entering the intersection but also the direction in which they exit the intersection.

• Collect Mode Split data from 4-6pm on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in the fall to provide a comparison of bicycle counts from spring to fall and not duplicate CTSC bike count efforts in spring.

• Bicycle counts should include electric motorized bicycles with pedals and not include people walking their bikes

• Pedestrian counts should include people in wheelchairs, children in strollers, people walking their bikes, skateboarding, roller blading, and using scooters.

The Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike Count Report without appendices can be found in Attachment 1. The full report with appendices can be found on the SCCRTC website (http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/). Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission accept the May 2012 Bike Count Report. SUMMARY The May 2012 Bike Count Report provides a summary of the results of the May 2012 count, bike count trend data collected by CTSC over the last ten years, recommendations for future count methodologies and a collection of the bike count data that has been collected in the county since 2000 during either the morning or evening commute periods.

Attachments:

1. Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike Count Report (without appendices) S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\Bike Count Rept\SR_BikeCountRept.docx

http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/�

May 2013

Santa Cruz County May 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Count Report

A collaborative project between the Regional Transportation Commission, the Community Traffic Safety Coalition and the University of California Santa Cruz IDEASS Program

DRAFT


-- This page intentionally left blank --


i


A collaborative project between the Regional Transportation Commission, the Community

Traffic Safety Coalition and the University of California Santa Cruz IDEASS Program

May 2013

Project Coordinators

• Ryan Heywood, University of California Santa Cruz, IDEASS Student

• Ginger Dykaar, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission,

Transportation Planner

• Theresia Rogerson, County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency and the

Community Traffic Safety Coalition, Health Educator

• Cory Caletti, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission,

Senior Transportation Planner

See Appendix A for List of Volunteers that contributed greatly to this effort.


ii



iii

Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Key Findings ................................................................................. 1

Methodology ........................................................................................ 2

Bicycle Observation/Count Survey .................................................... 2

NBPD Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts ................................................ 3

Motor Vehicle Counts ...................................................................... 6

Results ................................................................................................. 6

Bicycle Observation/Count Survey .................................................... 6

NBPD Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts ................................................ 9

Motor Vehicle Counts ..................................................................... 10

Mode Split .................................................................................... 11

RTC NBPD Bicycle Counts versus CTSC Bicycle Counts ...................... 12

Conclusions ........................................................................................ 14

Bicycle Counts ............................................................................. 14

Mode Split Counts (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle) ................ 14

Appendix A ......................................................................................... 17

Appendix B ......................................................................................... 19

Appendix C ......................................................................................... 23

Appendix D ........................................................................................ 31

Appendix E ......................................................................................... 45

Appendix F ......................................................................................... 49


iv



1

Introduction The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) partnered with the County of Santa Cruz Community Traffic Safety Coalition (CTSC) and the University of California Santa Cruz IDEASS Program to perform bicycle and pedestrian counts throughout the county in May of 2012. The Community Traffic Safety Coalition has performed seven bicycle safety observation surveys and counts at approximately 40 locations over the past ten years. In addition to the bicycle observation surveys and counts conducted by the CTSC this year, the RTC used the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation (NBPD) methodology for counting both bicyclists and pedestrians at 10 of these locations. Motor vehicle counts were also collected at these 10 locations and at the same times as the bicyclist and pedestrian counts. The objectives of this study were to:

• collect data on the number of people bicycling and walking in Santa Cruz County for planning bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements,

• test the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation methodology for establishing a bicycle and pedestrian count collection protocol for Santa Cruz County,

• gather mode split information (bicycle, pedestrian and motor vehicle) to assess how people travel,

• collect data at regular intervals for measuring pedestrian and bicycle ridership trends and monitoring the progress of our county in moving towards a more sustainable transportation system.

The results of the CTSC bicycle observation survey portion of the study can be found on the Community Traffic Safety Coalition website by scrolling down on the Safety Info page (http://www.sctrafficsafety.org/).

Key Findings

Based on the bicycle, pedestrian and motor vehicle data collected in May 2012, our findings indicate:

• The largest number of bicyclists observed during this count were at intersections in the City of Santa Cruz and Mid-county, including Capitola

• The top three intersections with the greatest number of bicyclists that were counted during this time period were Bay Dr. and High St.(UCSC); Seabright Ave. and Murray St.; and Front St. and Laurel St.

• There is an overall upward trend over the last 10 years in the bicycle ridership for Santa Cruz County

• Average mode share at the 20 locations measured was 93.6% motor vehicle, 2.7% bike and 3.7% pedestrian.

• The highest bicycle mode share (10.9%) was on Bay Dr (south of High St) in the City of Santa Cruz.

http://www.sctrafficsafety.org/�


2

• The highest pedestrian mode share (20.2%) was on Maple Ave (west of Union St) in the City of Watsonville.

Methodology Two distinct count methodologies were used for this study. The CTSC bicycle observation study has been performed for a number of years and can be used to establish trends. The RTC bicycle and pedestrian counts used the NBPD methodology and together with motor vehicle counts provides mode split data.

Bicycle Observation/Count Survey

Bicycle counts were conducted during the CTSC observation surveys at 46 locations throughout Santa Cruz County (Figure 1). More detailed maps of the count locations can be found in Appendix B, Figures B-1 through B-4. All of the locations for the 2012 survey were the same as used in previous observation surveys, except for three school sites added in 2009, and five more school sites added in 2012.

Figure 1: Map of CTSC Count Locations in Santa Cruz County

The survey was taken primarily between May 15 and June 1, 2012 with some surveys taken up until mid-June, 2012. These dates were chosen to represent a “typical” spring commute day. Collection dates took into consideration that UCSC


3

and Cabrillo College were still in session and that other events that could significantly increase or decrease ridership/pedestrian travel were not occurring such as Bike to Work/School week and the Amgen Tour of California professional bicycle race. Bike counts in May have typically been taken after Bike to Work/School week which may affect the bike count totals. The survey included three types of locations: commuter (C), school (S), and weekend (W). The commuter and weekend sites were conducted at intersections and the locations of the school sites are listed at the bottom of Table 1. The commuter sites were observed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. School sites were observed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays for one hour with the count starting 45 minutes before school begins. Weekend sites were observed from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm on a Saturday or Sunday. One survey/count was conducted for each site. Thirty-four volunteers and RTC/CTSC staff conducted the observations/counts. Each observer had a sheet to collect data on bicyclists that included approximate age, gender, whether they were wearing a helmet, riding with traffic, stopping at a stop sign or red light, and riding on the sidewalk. It’s important to note that wearing helmets is required by law only for those under the age of 18. Given the safety benefits of helmet use, data was collected to measure how well the education message penetrated across all age groups. Also, bicycle riding on sidewalks is not prohibited in all municipalities although it is not recommended for the majority of the bicycle population (excluding youth and the elderly) due to increased collision risk. Observations were collected on all bicyclists passing through the intersection which provides a count of bicyclists during this time period. Also recorded were date, day of the week, and weather conditions. Observers were given instructions and a data collection tool to ensure reliable results.

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Ten of the CTSC locations were chosen to perform an additional bicycle count as well as a pedestrian count using the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation methodology (Figure 1 and Figures B-1 to B-4). The NBPD was developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Pedestrian and Bicycle Council and Alta Planning and Design to establish a consistent nationwide methodology for bicycle and pedestrian counts. The methodology aims to establish:

• Consistent days and times • Consistent count locations • Consistent methods and materials • Background documentation of each location • Open access to bicycle and pedestrian trend data nationwide

Bicyclist counts record the direction from which bicyclists travel and their turning movement through the intersection broken down in 15 minute intervals (Figure 2).


4

Pedestrian counts record the direction (but not turning movement) from which they travel in 15 minute intervals (Figure 3). Figure 2. Example Bike Count Tally Sheet for One 15 Minute Interval

4:00-4:15

“Motorized Bicycles” (please note direction)


5

Figure 3. Example Pedestrian Count Tally Sheet for One 15 Minute Interval

The 10 locations were chosen based on bicycle volumes as determined from past CTSC bike observation/count surveys and previous City of Santa Cruz bicycle count locations. The NBPD counts took place on May 15th, 16th, 17th (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 4-6 pm), 2012 as recommended by the NBPD methodology. The bicycle observation surveys at these 10 locations were also taken at the same time. The NBPD recommends counting at one location for every 15,000 residents. Given the most recent 2011 estimate of Santa Cruz County’s population (264,298), this would equate to counting at roughly 18 sites. The total number of bicycle counts taken throughout the county (46) far exceeds this recommendation. The bicycle and pedestrian counts using the NBPD methodology were only collected at 10 intersections due to resource limitations. Twenty-one volunteers manually counted bike and pedestrian traffic using standardized count forms and procedures based on the NBPD protocol and customized for our study. Each volunteer counter was individually trained on how to properly use the forms prior to count dates, and was provided with a folder with all count materials prepared (map of assigned location, count forms, instructions sheet, pencils, and a public flier in the event the observer is asked questions about the count). Each location had between one and four volunteers to collect data. High

treet:_______________

_

Str

eet:_

_

_

____

__

treet:_____________

Stre

et:_

____

____

____

25ft

Roller Bladder (RB) Scooter (SC)”

Notes:

A

B

C

D

4:00-4:15


6

volume sites such as High St & Bay Dr. near UCSC had two pedestrian and two bicycle counters for the NBPD counts to balance the data collection efforts among volunteers and insure accuracy. Lower volume sites had one volunteer for counting both bike and pedestrian activity. Bicycle counts include the number of people on a bike (not the number of bikes), motorized bicycles or mopeds and people walking their bicycles. Pedestrian counts include people using a wheelchair, stroller, skateboard, scooter and roller blades. Typical protocol counts people walking their bikes as pedestrians and not bicyclists and people walking their bikes will likely be counted as pedestrians in future counts.

Motor Vehicle Counts Motor-vehicle data was also simultaneously collected via automated pressure hose counters in 15 minute intervals at 2 roadway crossings at each of the 10 intersections (20 motor vehicle counts total). This data was combined with the bicycle and pedestrian data to provide mode split information at these 20 locations in order to assess how people travel in our county. Vehicle occupancy was not collected during this count but would be worthwhile to collect in future counts for including carpool into the mode split analysis.

Results Bicycle Observation/Count Survey The bicycle observation/count survey is conducted primarily for observing bicycle safety behaviors. Because of this emphasis, the counts from this data collection effort may not be a fully accurate representation of the total number of bicyclists that traveled through the intersections during this time. It is possible that the observer, being occupied with capturing all the behavior observations, may have not been able to count all bicyclists. With this consideration in mind, bicycle count data collected through the CTSC observation surveys from 2003 through 2012 can be found in Table 1. There is an overall increase in ridership from 2010 to 2012 of 3%. This was determined by calculating the increase in counts for 2012 (taking out counts at new locations) compared to 2010. The trends in bicycle ridership for different areas of the county were averaged and plotted in Figure 4. Trend data calculated using a least squares linear regression for these averaged data show that there is an overall increase in ridership in Santa Cruz County since 2003.

Table 1: CTSC bicycle count data for Santa Cruz County (C=commute 4-6pm Mon-Fri, W=weekend 11am-1pm Sat/Sun, S = school 1 hr based on school start time)

Type Mode Split Site Location 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

W N E. Cliff Dr. & Wharf Road, Capitola Capitola 199 152 155 108 138 167 158

C N Ocean Street & Barson City of Santa Cruz - Beach Flats 73 72 69 64 66 93 49


7


C N Riverside, Leibrandt & Second St.

City of Santa Cruz - Beach Flats 41 62 68 73 88 48 73

C Y Front Street & Laurel Street

City of Santa Cruz - Downtown 163 223 291 206 250 221

W N Laurel Street & Chestnut City of Santa Cruz - Downtown 117 117 117 120 103 111 95

C N Pacific & Laurel St City of Santa Cruz - Downtown 267

C N River Street & Encinal Street

City of Santa Cruz - Downtown 53 64 82 54 28 37 47

C Y Seabright & Murray City of Santa Cruz - East Side 156 246 286 339 231 274 244

C N Soquel Avenue & Frederick Street

City of Santa Cruz - East Side 112 139 129 176 144 124 152

W N Soquel Drive & Winkle Avenue

City of Santa Cruz - East Side 35 51 48 70 54 59 46

C Y High Street & Bay (UCSC) City of Santa Cruz - Westside 229 160 227 122 280 316 365

C N Mission Street & Western Drive

City of Santa Cruz - Westside 41 58 72 46 54 33 47

C N Swift Street & Delaware City of Santa Cruz - Westside 19 105 107 139 97 136 115

C N Granite Creek & Scott's Valley Dr Scotts Valley 32 34 40 22 21 25 30

C Y Mt. Herman & Scott's Valley Dr Scotts Valley 8 18 37 35 24 29 46

W N Hwy 1 at Wilder Ranch Unincorporated County - Davenport 97 95 84 43 78 79 80

C Y Brommer & 17th Unincorporated County - Live Oak 71 114 104 122 123 101 127

W N East Cliff & 7th Ave. Unincorporated County - Live Oak 152 163 106 82 112 153 126

C Y Portola Ave. & 41st, Capitola

Unincorporated County - Opal Cliffs 79 98 108 122 145 128 117

C N Hwy 9 & Graham Hill Unincorporated County - SLV 7 12 19 15 21 20 24

C Y Soquel Dr. & Porter St., Soquel

Unincorporated County - Soquel 53 59 96 64 76 69 82

W N Freedom & Alta Vista Watsonville 25 38 20 21 37 21 34

C N Freedom Blvd. & Alta Vista Ave. Watsonville 16 38 35 21 47 46 42

C Y Freedom Blvd. & Green Valley Watsonville 34 40 46 50 21 32 38

C N Freedom Blvd. & Main Street Watsonville 24 13 24 17 37 22 38

W N Green Valley Rd. & Holohan Rd. Watsonville 8 14 16 21 10 33

C N Lincoln Street & High Street Watsonville 13 13 10 14 27 17 16

W N Main Street & East Beach Street Watsonville 70 24 38 44 43 61

C Y Main Street & Rodriguez Street Watsonville 43 46 28 24 25 26 43

C Y Maple Ave. & Union Street Watsonville 39 26 38 44 63 28 52

W N Pennsylvania & Clifford Watsonville 10 8 12 12 14 31 18


8


W N Rodriguez & Ford Watsonville 17 18 13 34 9 16

C N Second Street & Rodriguez Street Watsonville 36 34 32 23 38 25 26

S N New Brighton Middle School School - Capitola 23 17 17 26

S N Bay View Elementary School - City of Santa Cruz 66

S N Gault Elementary School - City of Santa Cruz 24 33 19 40 25 39 55

S N Mission Hill Middle School School - City of Santa Cruz 38 9 46 66 75 70 55

S N Natural Bridges Elementary

School - City of Santa Cruz 25

S N Pacific Collegiate Charter School

School - City of Santa Cruz 21 25

S N Westlake Elementary School - City of Santa Cruz 51

S N Del Mar Elementary School - Unincorporated County 8

S N Green Acres Elementary School - Unincorporated County 19 34 8

S N Live Oak Elementary School - Unincorporated County

29 50 44 39 37 54 27

S N Shoreline Middle School School - Unincorporated County 35

S N Ann Soldo Elementary School - Watsonville 6 4 26

S N Freedom Elementary School - Watsonville 1 11 11

S N H.A. Hyde Elementary School School - Watsonville 6

S N MacQuiddy Elementary School - Watsonville 10 5 0 6

S N Mintie White Elementary School - Watsonville 4 5 4 4 12 5 5

Observation Locations for Schools New Brighton Middle School—on Monterey Ave, in front of the school OR at Monterey and Washburn Bay View Elementary - on Bay St. in front of school Gault Elementary—Seabright and Broadway Mission Hill Middle School –on King St in front of the school Natural Bridges Elementary-- in front of school Pacific Collegiate Charter School—in front of school Westlake Elementary - High St. and Moore St Del Mar Elementary - Merril St. and Jamie Ln. Green Acres Elementary—on school property, at the end of the turn around, between the two Bostwicks Live Oak Elementary—Capitola and Chanticleer Shoreline Middle School - 17th Ave. and Felt St. Ann Soldo Elementary—Wagner and Vista Montana Freedom Elementary—Airport and Freedom H.A. Hyde Elementary School - on Alta Vista Ave in front of school between Santa Clara St. and Marilyn St. MacQuiddy Elementary—in front of the school Mintie White Elementary—Brennan and Palm


9

Figure 4: Average bicycle count data for various areas throughout Santa Cruz County (May 2012)*

*Note: All count data was collected over a 2 hour period except school sites were collected for 1 hour based on school start time.

NBPD Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts The bicycle and pedestrian count data collected at the 10 intersection locations over the 2 hour time period are shown in Figure 5. The weather was sunny and clear on all three count days with slightly windy conditions on the last day (Thursday, May 17th). The locations with the highest bicycle counts during the data collection were High St and Bay Dr., Front St and Laurel St, and Seabright Ave. and Murray St. which are all in the City of Santa Cruz. Pedestrian counts were highest at Front St and Laurel St. in City of Santa Cruz, Maple Ave. and Union St. in Watsonville, and High St and Bay Dr. in City of Santa Cruz. There were 2,066 pedestrians and 1,425 bicyclists observed at these 10 intersections during this data collection effort. The results from these counts have been sent to the NBPD national database in an effort to standardize and document bicycle and pedestrian demands similar to motor-vehicle counts.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

Aver

age

Bic

ycle

Cou

nt

City of Santa Cruz

City of Scotts Valley

Mid-County

City of Watsonville

School


10

Figure 5: NBPD Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts

Motor Vehicle Counts Motor vehicle counts were taken using pressure hose counters at 2 roadway crossings for each of the 10 intersections of the NBPD count locations for a total of 20 motor vehicle counts. Those count locations are listed in Table 2. Figure 4 represents motor-vehicle traffic volumes at each crossing recorded over a 24 hour period during each count day. The red highlighted section displays the 4-6pm time period that bicyclists and pedestrians were counted. The NBPD methodology recommends counting bicyclists and pedestrians at a time that typically has the largest volume of travelers. As shown in Figure 6, 4-6pm was the appropriate time slot as the majority of locations had peak motor-vehicle numbers during this time. The evening commute spiked around 5pm as people were leaving work, school, or afternoon shopping. Complete motor-vehicle data was collected from each location during the same day as the bicycle and pedestrian counts except for one site. On Thursday May 17th, a pressure hose counter was broken along Portola Ave. The counter was replaced and motor-vehicle data for this site was recorded on the following Tuesday, May 22nd.

349

126 152

388

148

416

160

98

180

49

367

35 37 57

81

280 263

149

111

45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Num

ber o

f Bic

ycle

s an

d Pe

dest

rians

(4-6

pm)

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists


11

Figure 6: Motor Vehicle Counts over 24 Hour Period (May 15, 16, or 17, 2012)

Mode Split The percentage of motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians (mode split) was determined for the 20 motor vehicle hose count roadway crossing locations (Table 2). The results show that the bicyclist mode share at these 20 roadway crossings ranges from 0.6% to 10.9% and the pedestrian mode share ranges from 0.5% to 20.2%. Average mode share at the 20 locations measured was 93.6% motor vehicle, 2.7% bike and 3.7% pedestrian. The highest bicycle mode share (10.9%) was on Bay St (south of High St) in City of Santa Cruz and the highest pedestrian mode share (20.2%) was on Maple Ave (west of Union St) in the City of Watsonville. The mode split data was determined based on the number of users of each mode that passed over the hose count location. The bicycle counts recorded the direction each bicyclist traveled and their turning movements and thus the exact number of bicyclists crossing over the hose count location could be determined. The pedestrian counts recorded only the direction from which each pedestrian traveled and thus it was assumed that their direction of travel was straight across the intersection in order to estimate the mode split for each hose count location. Future pedestrian count data for mode split analysis would more accurately determine mode split if the direction the pedestrian was traveling from and their turning movements was recorded.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Mot

or V

ehic

les

per 1

5 m

intu

tes

Time (24 hour period)

Peak Traffic Period 4-6pm


12

The methods by which volunteers counted motorized bicyclists, people walking their bikes, people on skateboards, scooters and roller blades were not always consistent. Effort will need to be made to more extensively train future volunteers to make sure there is consistency in the count methodology. Table 2: County-Wide Mode Split Counts 2012

Data was collected Tues-Thurs, May 15-17, 4-6 pm

Date Location Street

Motor Vehicles Bicycles Pedestrians

Total % Total % Total %

5/15/2012 City of Santa Cruz Bay St (S of High St) 1910 80.9% 257 10.9% 195 8.3%

5/15/2012 City of Santa Cruz High St (E of Bay St) 1704 86.7% 107 5.4% 154 7.8%

5/16/2012 City of Santa Cruz Front St (N of Laurel St) 1943 86.1% 114 5.1% 199 8.8%

5/16/2012 City of Santa Cruz Laurel St (E of Front St) 3498 89.7% 212 5.4% 191 4.9%

5/17/2012 City of Santa Cruz Seabright Ave (N of Murray St) 1475 85.8% 108 6.3% 137 8.0%

5/17/2012 City of Santa Cruz Murray St (E of Seabright Ave) 3533 94.0% 204 5.4% 23 0.6%

5/16/2012 Live Oak Brommer St (W of 17th Ave) 1474 92.4% 75 4.7% 46 2.9%

5/16/2012 Live Oak 17th Ave (N of Brommer St) 1668 93.8% 59 3.3% 52 2.9%

5/17/2012 Opal Cliffs Portola Dr (W of 41st Ave)* 2622 95.1% 71 2.6% 65 2.4%

5/17/2012 Opal Cliffs 41st Ave (N of Portola Dr) 1674 91.0% 50 2.7% 115 6.3%

5/17/2012 Scott's Valley Mt Hermon Rd (NW of Scott's Valley Dr) 5792 99.5% 4 0.1% 28 0.5%

5/17/2012 Scott's Valley Scott's Valley Dr (NE of Mt Hermon Rd) 3615 98.7% 25 0.7% 21 0.6%

5/16/2012 Soquel Soquel Dr (W of Porter St) 3453 96.3% 56 1.6% 76 2.1%

5/16/2012 Soquel Porter St (S of Soquel Dr) 1913 95.4% 22 1.1% 71 3.5%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Maple Ave (W of Union St) 527 77.2% 18 2.6% 138 20.2%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Union St (N of Maple Ave) 1340 81.9% 46 2.8% 250 15.3%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Freedom Blvd (E of Green Valley Rd) 4500 98.3% 18 0.4% 60 1.3%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Green Valley Rd (S of Freedom Blvd) 3320 97.6% 17 0.5% 66 1.9%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Main St (W of Rodriguez St) 4608 96.5% 36 0.8% 130 2.7%

5/15/2012 Watsonville Rodriguez St (S of Main St) 1095 98.1% 7 0.6% 14 1.3%

Total Mode Split 51664 93.6% 1506 2.7% 2031 3.7%

*Note: Motor data was collected on May 22nd instead of May 17th, due to a broken hose counter on May 17th.

RTC NBPD Bicycle Counts versus CTSC Bicycle Counts The CTSC and RTC partnered in collecting bicycle data at each location during the same time period. Both agencies had different methods and separate volunteers for recording bicycle data. If both counting processes were error free, then both


13

agencies would have recorded the same bicycle volumes for each site. Discrepancies were observed when comparing bicycle totals from each agency (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Comparison of Bicycle Counts Observed Using Different Methodologies

The data collected through the CTSC observation survey involves recording cyclist age, helmet use, riding with traffic, riding on the sidewalk, and obeying traffic signals which is much more data intensive than counting the direction of bicyclists entering and exiting the intersection. The potential for miscounting was perceived to be higher for the CTSC observation survey count than the RTC count but this was not always the case as is seen in Figure 5. The large discrepancy at Front St and Laurel St. was due to one volunteer not showing up which left only one volunteer to observe/count in all 4 directions. The accuracy in the data collection would likely be increased by:

• Recruiting a sufficient number of volunteers for each location and having back up volunteers if volunteers cancel at the last minute

• Separating volunteers to reduce distraction so all bicyclists are counted

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Tota

l Bic

yclis

ts O

bser

ved

(4-6

pm)

Intersections

Total Observed CTSC

Total Observed RTC


14

• Training volunteers well on the method for data collection and emphasizing the importance of being on time and counting all bicyclists during that 2 hour time period

• Ensuring consistency in what is considered a “bicyclist” and “pedestrian” (i.e. how electric bikes, people walking their bikes, scooters, skateboarders, roller bladders and children in strollers are counted)

Conclusions Santa Cruz County, with its ever increasing bicycle transportation network, offers bicycling enthusiasts and beginners alike a wonderful opportunity to get around by bike. In order to assess the number of people who are traveling by bike, it is critical to establish a count methodology that is consistent across the county and over time. This data collection effort can be used to facilitate planning for bicycle infrastructure improvements as well as monitor our county’s progress towards a more sustainable transportation system. Future counts that are taken within Santa Cruz County would be most comparable to past counts if the following recommendations are followed.

Bicycle Counts

• Commute, weekend and school counts taken at 46 locations throughout Santa Cruz County as currently defined by Community Traffic Safety Coalition (Table 1 and Figures B-1 to B-4)

• Commute counts taken from 4-6 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday • School counts taken for 1 hour starting 45 minutes before school starts on

Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday • Weekend counts taken from 11-1 pm on Saturday (preferably) or Sunday • Counts taken annually mid-May to end of May (with consideration for other

events such as Bike to Work/School week and before end of semester at UCSC and Cabrillo)

• Counts will tally the number of people on bicycles entering the intersection from each direction (see example bicycle count sheet in Appendix C)

• Bicycle counts will include motorized bicycles with pedals (electric and gas) and will not include people walking their bikes

Mode Split Counts (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Motor Vehicle)

• Motor vehicle hose counts taken on 2 of the 4 roads entering the 10 intersection locations as in 2012

• Bicycle and pedestrian counts taken at the 10 intersections will indicate not only the direction the bicyclist or pedestrian is entering the intersection but also the direction in which they exit the intersection. This will allow for a more accurate mode split determination (see Appendix D for example mode split data collection sheets for bicycle and pedestrian counts)

• Mode Split data collected from 4-6pm on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in the fall would provide a comparison of bicycle counts from spring to fall and not duplicate CTSC bike count efforts in spring.


15

• Bicycle counts will include electric motorized bicycles with pedals and will not include people walking their bikes

• Pedestrian counts will include people in wheelchairs, children in strollers, people walking their bikes, skateboarding, roller blading, and using their scooters

Previous bicycle and pedestrian counts that have been taken during the morning or evening commute period in Santa Cruz County from the year 2000 on can be found in Appendices E and F.

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Daniel Nikuna, Fiscal Officer RE: FY12-13 SCCRTC Semi-Annual Internal Financial Statements RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission review and accept the FY12-13 Annual Financial Statements (enclosed separately for Commissioners) BACKGROUND Every year the Regional Transportation Commission’s Fiscal Officer prepares internal financial statements after half of the fiscal year is complete and after the end of the fiscal year. The internal financial statements provide an overview of the financial position prior to the audited report. The interim reporting is also an opportunity to review the books and produce reliable financial information which could be useful to management for decision making purposes DISCUSSION The RTC currently has 12 funds with six Governmental (Operating) Funds and an equal number of Trust Funds. Overall, the RTC is in stable financial health. In the detail sections of the financial statements, current year actual revenues and expenditures are compared to the budget. The financial highlights are included in the transmittal. In general, the expenditures are in line with the budget and the TDA revenues continue to improve. The major projects based on expenditure levels this period are: Rail Purchase, Auxiliary Lanes Construction, Highway 1 HOV Lanes, and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail. The actual cost of the rail line corridor purchase will be capitalized at year end after further analysis of cost components. The statements are intended for internal use; however, they are available for review at the RTC Office. SUMMARY The FY12-13 semi-annual internal financial statements have been completed and staff recommends review and acceptance by the Commission. Enclosure: FY12-13 SCCRTC Semi-annual Financial Statement (enclosed separately for

Commissioners)

\\RTCSERV2\Shared\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\FY2013 SR Semi-Annual Internal Financials.docx

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) FROM: Luis Pavel Mendez, Deputy Director RE: Amendments to the FY12-13 Budget & Work Program RECOMMENDATIONS The Budget and Administration/Personnel (B&A/P) Committee and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the FY 2012-13 Budget and Work Program as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

BACKGROUND At its October 2012 meeting, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) approved the major fall amendment to the fiscal year (FY) 2012-13 budget and work program and has made some project specific amendments since then. Due to fiscal year expenditure corrections on the Highway 1 auxiliary lanes construction project and work trends, it is necessary to consider further amendments to the FY 2012-13 budget and work program. At its April 11, 2012 meeting, the B&A/P Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendments. DISCUSSION Highway 1 Construction Project Expenditures As the RTC Fiscal Officer prepared the mid-year financial statements for FY 2012-13, he discovered that some FY 2011-12 expenditures were budgeted in FY 2012-13 and vice-versa. The proposed budget changes are not an increase or decrease to the overall expenditures and revenues for the project but simply ensure that expenditures for FY 2012-13 are included in the budget. Work Trend Adjustments The RTC secured a planning grant to produce a unified corridor investment plan analyzing potential use of Highway 1, Soquel Drive and the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line to help meet certain transportation needs. Staff anticipated beginning that work in April 2013; however, work activities associated with older funding grants gained more momentum than previously anticipated. Therefore, staff proposes focusing on completing the work associated with the older funds first and shifting the unified corridor investment plan work to FY 2013-14. These work trend adjustments shift staffing resources among projects, work duties and fiscal years but do not alter the overall staffing budget previously approved by the RTC.

Amendments to the FY 2012-13 Budget and Work Program Page 2

Sustainability Analysis for Regional Transportation Plan After the B&A/P Committee’s April 11th

meeting, RTC staff learned that additional sustainability analysis is required for some of the projects included in the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, in the planning expenditures budget page it is proposed that $5,000 be shifted from the line for engineering and other technical consultants to the STARS for Regional Transportation budget line to complete this work.

All of the proposed amendments to FY 2012-13 budget pages and line items are noted on Exhibit A of Attachment 1. The B&A/P Committee and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the proposed amended FY 2012-13 budget and work program as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

SUMMARY Due to fiscal year expenditure corrections on the Highway 1 auxiliary lanes construction project and work trends, it is necessary to consider amendments to the FY 2012-13 budget and work program. Therefore, the B&A/P Committee and staff recommend that the Regional Transportation Commission approved the proposed amended FY 2012-13 budget and work program as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

1. Resolution amending the FY 2012-13 budget and work program Attachments:

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\FY12-13Budg\1213BudgAmend.doc

RESOLUTION NO. Adopted by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on the date of May 2, 2013 on the motion of Commissioner duly seconded by Commissioner A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2012-13 BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM FOR THE

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission adopts and periodically amends a budget and work program for each fiscal year to guide its expenses and work; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

1. The FY 2012-13 Budget and Work Program for the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ______________________________ Neal Coonerty, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ George Dondero, Secretary Attachments: Exhibit A - SCCRTC FY 2012-13 Budget as amended Distribution: RTC Fiscal AMBAG S:\RESOLUTI\2013\RES0513\BUDWPAMEND FY12-13.doc

ATTACHMENT 1

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPROJECTED REVENUE SUMMARY

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-1-

1 PROJECTED REVENUE SUMMARY2 FY12-13 FY12-133 SOURCES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 03/21/13 05/02/135 Transportation Development Act (TDA):6 Auditor's 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Estimate 7,216,348 7,216,348 07 FY 2011-2012 Surplus Revenues Budgeted 394,728 394,728 08 Interest Estimate 8,000 8,000 09 Total TDA Apportioned 7,619,076 7,619,076 0

1011 State Transit Assistance (STA) 3,305,170 3,305,170 012 Planning Grant Funds/Others:13 Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) 322,411 322,411 014 STIP for Planning (PPM) 163,537 163,537 015 RSTP Exchange - Eco Act, CTSC, & Bike Signage 39,800 39,800 016 FHWA - Earmark 395,372 395,372 017 FHWA - Planning (PL) - from AMBAG 235,411 250,411 15,000 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated18 Coastal Conservancy 250,000 250,000 019 SCMTD 4,136 4,136 020 New Freedom Grant 165,000 165,000 021 SGC Grant 50,084 58,573 8,489 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated22 Transit intern and planning grants 137,413 118,622 -18,791 - Work shifted to FY 2013-14 to accommodate other work in this fiscal year23 Other Revenues 9,750 9,750 024 RTC Funds Budgeted 332,214 327,516 -4,698 - Work shifted to FY 2013-14 to accommodate other work in this fiscal year25 Planning/Other Total 2,105,128 2,105,128 026 Rideshare:27 RSTP Exchange & AMBAG funds 130,981 130,981 028 CMAQ - Rideshare 186,960 186,960 029 AB2766 68,784 68,784 030 Service Authority for Freeway Emergency (SAFE):31 DMV Fees and interest 239,000 239,000 032 Other - MTC SAFE and Partnership Planning Grant 140,290 140,290 033 SAFE Funds Budgeted 83,350 83,350 034 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP):35 Caltrans Grant 206,370 206,370 036 Hwy 1 Aux Lanes project TMP funds 120,000 120,000 037 FSP Reserves Budgeted and Interest 70,630 70,630 038 Rail/Trail Authority:39 Proposition 116 and STIP 19,550,000 19,550,000 040 Leases and Union Pacific 446,500 446,500 041 Federal Earmark and RSTP Exchange 431,584 431,584 042 Transfer - in from TC Planning 110,000 110,000 043 Rail/Trail Funds Budgeted 114,860 114,860 044 Highway 1:45 RSTP Exchange 1,961,056 1,961,056 046 Federal Earmark 0 0 047 STIP 1,537,236 1,749,312 212,076 - Funds expended in FY 2012-13 not FY 2011-1248 CMIA (state bond) 10,462,198 10,463,342 1,144 - Funds expended in FY 2012-13 not FY 2011-1249 RSTP Exchange Program 7,879,390 7,879,390 050 TOTAL 56,768,563 56,981,783 213,220

I:\FISCAL\BUDGET\FY12-13Budget\May13\[FY2013May13-1.xlsx]Planning Expenditures 4/23/2013 8:22

Exhibit A

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONAPPORTIONMENT SUMMARY

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-2-

12 APPORTIONMENT SUMMARY3 FY12-13 FY12-134 CLAIMANTS APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE5 03/21/13 05/02/136 Transportation Development Act (TDA): (1)78 TDA Reserve Fund 22,253 22,253 09 RTC Reserve Fund 250,000 250,000 0

10 SCCRTC: % Chg11 TDA Administration 475,657 475,657 0 0.00%12 TDA Planning: General Planning 280,186 280,186 0 0.00%13 Bike to Work 50,000 50,000 0 0.00%14 Bike & Pedestrian Safety (CTSC) 100,000 100,000 0 0.00%15 Subtotal 905,843 905,843 0 0.00%1617 SCMTD 5,507,038 5,507,038 0 0.00%18 Specialized Transit (Community Bridges/CTSA) 541,042 541,042 0 0.00%19 Volunteer Center 64,410 64,410 0 0.00%20 City of Capitola 12,327 12,327 0 0.00%21 City of Santa Cruz - Non Transit 76,515 76,515 0 0.00%22 City of Scotts Valley 14,377 14,377 0 0.00%23 City of Watsonville 63,740 63,740 0 0.00%24 County of Santa Cruz 161,531 161,531 0 0.00%25 Subtotal 6,440,980 6,440,980 0 0.00%2627 TOTAL TDA APPORTIONED 7,619,076 7,619,076 02829 State Transit Assistance (STA) - SCMTD 3,305,170 3,305,170 03031 Planning Grant Funds/Others: 2,105,128 2,105,128 03233 Rideshare 386,725 386,725 03435 SAFE 462,640 462,640 03637 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 397,000 397,000 03839 Rail/Trail Authority 20,652,944 20,652,944 04041 Highway 1 13,960,490 14,173,710 213,220 - Funds expended in FY 2012-13 not FY 2011-124243 RSTP Exchange Program 7,879,390 7,879,390 04445 TOTAL 56,768,563 56,981,783 213,2204647 (1) TDA apportionments are based on the formulas in the RTC's Rules and Regulations. Balance not used for Planning and Administration is allocated to other TDA claimants as follows:48 85.5% is appropriated to SCMTD, 8.4% to Community Bridges and 1% to the Volunteer Center; the remaining funds are proportionally allocated to cities and the County according to population.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONBUDGET SUMMARY

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-3-

12 BUDGET SUMMARY34 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL5 FY 11-12 SALARIES & SERVICES & FY12-13 SALARIES & SERVICES & FY12-13 SALARIES & SERVICES &6 ADOPTED BENEFITS SUPPLIES ADOPTED BENEFITS SUPPLIES PROPOSED BENEFITS SUPPLIES7 OPERATIONS PROGRAMS 06/12 03/21/13 05/02/13 (1)89 SCCRTC - Administration 648,350 201,000 447,350 718,250 201,000 517,250 718,250 201,000 517,250

10 Rideshare 416,991 180,000 236,991 386,725 180,000 206,725 386,725 180,000 206,725 11 SAFE 598,633 140,000 458,633 462,640 150,000 312,640 462,640 150,000 312,640 12 Freeway Service Patrol 362,000 45,000 317,000 397,000 60,000 337,000 397,000 60,000 337,000 13 SCCRTC Planning 2,821,434 996,654 1,824,780 2,292,721 1,039,679 1,253,042 2,292,721 1,039,679 1,253,042 1415 Total Operations Programs 4,847,408 1,562,654 3,284,754 4,257,336 1,630,679 2,626,657 4,257,336 1,630,679 2,626,657 1617 CAPITAL PROGRAMS1819 Rail/Trail Authority 21,007,359 100,000 20,907,359 20,652,944 140,000 20,512,944 20,652,944 140,000 20,512,944 20 Highway 1 Env Docs & Design 2,807,022 150,832 2,656,190 1,961,056 75,000 1,886,056 1,961,056 75,000 1,886,056 21 Highway 1 Construction 15,933,000 200,000 15,733,000 11,999,434 239,586 11,759,848 12,212,654 239,586 11,973,068 2223 Total Capital Programs 39,747,381 450,832 39,296,549 34,613,434 454,586 34,158,848 34,826,654 454,586 34,372,068 2425 TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS 44,594,789 2,013,486 42,581,303 38,870,770 2,085,265 36,785,505 39,083,990 2,085,265 36,998,725 2627282930 FY 11-12 FY12-13 FY12-1331 FY 11-12 FY 11-12 ACTUAL LESS FY12-13 FY 11-12 ADOPTED VS FY12-13 FY12-13 PROPOSED VS32 PROGRAM ADOPTED ACTUAL ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED FY 11-12 PROPOSED ADOPTED FY12-1333 06/12 6/30/11 06/12 03/21/13 06/12 ADOPTED 05/02/13 03/21/13 ADOPTED3435 SCCRTC - Administration 648,350 495,198 (153,152) 718,250 648,350 69,900 718,250 718,250 - 36 Rideshare 416,991 179,767 (237,224) 386,725 416,991 (30,266) 386,725 386,725 - 37 SAFE 598,633 397,579 (201,054) 462,640 598,633 (135,993) 462,640 462,640 - 38 Freeway Service Patrol 362,000 290,206 (71,794) 397,000 362,000 35,000 397,000 397,000 - 39 Rail/Trail Authority 21,007,359 469,161 (20,538,198) 20,652,944 21,007,359 (354,415) 20,652,944 20,652,944 - 40 Highway 1 Env Docs & Design 2,807,022 921,236 (1,885,786) 1,961,056 2,807,022 (845,966) 1,961,056 1,961,056 - 41 Highway 1 Construction 15,933,000 3,720,462 (12,212,538) 11,999,434 15,933,000 (3,933,566) 12,212,654 11,999,434 213,220 42 SCCRTC Planning 2,821,434 1,589,272 (1,232,162) 2,292,721 2,821,434 (528,713) 2,292,721 2,292,721 - 4344 Total Operating Budget 44,594,789 8,062,881 (36,531,908) 38,870,770 44,594,789 (5,724,019) 39,083,990 38,870,770 213,220 4546 Notes: (1) Includes staffing shown on page 16

FY12-13 PROPOSED DETAILFY11-12 ADOPTED DETAIL FY12-13 ADOPTED DETAIL

BUDGET COMPARISONPRIOR YEAR AND BUDGET YEAR

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONHIGHWAY 1 CONSTRUCTION

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-10-

1 HWY 1 CONSTRUCTION: 722200

2 FY12-13 FY12-133 WORK ELEMENT #683 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 03/21/13 05/02/135 REVENUES:6 STIP Construction 1,537,236 1,749,312 212,076 - Funds expended in FY 2012-13 not FY 2011-127 CMIA Construction 10,462,198 10,463,342 1,144 - Funds expended in FY 2012-13 not FY 2011-128 TOTAL REVENUES 11,999,434 12,212,654 213,2209 EXPENDITURES:

10 Salaries and Benefits 239,586 239,586 01112 Services and Supplies:13 Hwy 1 Morrissey-Soquel Aux Lane Construction:14 Construction contract 8,167,374 8,167,374 015 Supplemental construction activity 832,000 832,000 016 Traffic management 445,000 420,041 -24,959 - For work done in FY 2011-1217 Traffic enforcement 145,468 145,468 018 Environmental mitigations 0 400,000 400,000 - Invoice received in late FY 2011-12 and paid in FY 2012-1319 Miscellaneous other 255,325 255,325 020 Construction management consultant 1,471,224 1,323,882 -147,342 - For work done in FY 2011-1221 Construction design support 163,717 149,238 -14,479 - For work done in FY 2011-1222 On Call Consultants 97,326 97,326 023 Contingency & Future Year Costs 182,414 182,414 024 Subtotal Services & Supplies 11,759,848 11,973,068 213,2202526 Unappropriated Revenues 0 0 027 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 11,999,434 12,212,654 213,220

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING REVENUES SUMMARY

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-11-

1 PLANNING REVENUES: 721600/721700/721750

2 FY12-13 FY12-133 SOURCES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 03/21/13 05/02/135 REVENUES:67 TDA Planning 430,186 430,186 08 Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) 322,411 322,411 09 STIP for Planning (PPM) 163,537 163,537 0

10 RSTP Exchange - Eco Act, CTSC, & Bike Signage 39,800 39,800 011 FHWA - Earmark 395,372 395,372 012 FHWA - Planning (PL) - from AMBAG 235,411 250,411 15,000 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated13 New Freedom Grant 165,000 165,000 014 Transit Professional Development Grant 13,568 13,568 015 Federal transit planning grant 1,649 1,649 016 Partnership Planning Grant 122,196 103,405 -18,791 - Work shifted to FY 2013-14 to accommodate other work in this fiscal year17 SCMTD 4,136 4,136 018 Coastal Conservancy 250,000 250,000 019 SGC Grants (AMBAG & SC County) 50,084 58,573 8,489 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated20 AB2766/Air District Funds: 21 Bike Secure - RTC 0 0 022 RTC Funds Budgeted 99,371 94,673 -4,698 - Work shifted to FY 2013-14 to accommodate other work in this fiscal year2324 TOTAL REVENUES 2,292,721 2,292,721 0

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING EXPENDITURES

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-12-

1 PLANNING EXPENDITURES: 721600/721700/721750

2 FY12-13 FY12-133 EXPENDITURES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 03/21/13 05/02/1356 Staff & Overhead by Program7 Plan Coordination 95,471 95,471 08 Land Use/Transportation Coordination - - 09 Complete streets plan 37,584 46,073 8,489 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated

10 SC County sustainable comm and transit corridor plan 5,000 5,000 011 Work Program 30,000 30,000 012 Unified Corridor Investment Plan 23,489 - -23,489 - Work shifted to FY 2013-14 to accommodate other work in this fiscal year13 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 47,929 47,929 014 Bike Secure 7,500 7,500 015 Bike Signage Plan - - 016 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network 215,000 215,000 017 Specialized Transportation 48,459 48,459 018 Safe Paths to Transit 5,500 5,500 019 Regional Transportation Plan for MTP 233,450 233,450 020 Regional Travel Demand Model & Monitoring 50,000 65,000 15,000 - Greater level of work in this FY than previously estimated21 On-board transit study 1,748 1,748 022 Transit Planning Intern grant 15,629 15,629 023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 157,618 157,618 024 Highway & Roadway Planning 65,302 65,302 025 Subtotal Staff and Overhead 1,039,679 1,039,679 026 Services & Supplies27 Passthrough Programs28 Bike To Work Program (Ecology Action) 50,000 50,000 029 Bike & Ped Safety (Community Traffic Safety Coalition) 100,000 100,000 030 Safe Paths to Transit 160,000 160,000 031 Bike Signage Program - - 03233 Professional Services (contracts)34 Sacramento Assistant 36,000 36,000 035 Washington Assistant 44,600 44,600 036 Engineering and Other Technical Consultants 70,000 65,000 -5,000 - Moved to STARS for RTP budget line37 STARS for Regional Transportation Plan 51,800 56,800 5,000 - Produce a more complete analysis of projects38 On-board transit study 6,260 6,260 039 SC Metro for on-board transit study 1,105 1,105 040 Complete Streets plan consultant 7,500 7,500 041 MBSST Network Master Plan Consultant 410,372 410,372 042 Unified Corridor Investment Plan Consultant 103,405 103,405 04344 RTC Work Element Related Items45 Bike Secure Program - - 046 Traffic Monitoring services 70,000 70,000 047 Printing RTP, RTIP, other Documents and Pub Info Materials 12,000 12,000 048 MBSST Network Plan Outreach 20,000 20,000 049 Transfer to Rail/Trail Authority 110,000 110,000 050 Subtotal Services & Supplies 1,253,042 1,253,042 05152 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,292,721 2,292,721 0

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING FUNDS SOURCE DETAIL

FY 2012-2013 BUDGET

-13-

PLANNING DETAIL: 721600/721700/721750

1 FY12-13 RTC FHWA SGC SGC STIP FHWA Fed 5304 Fed 5304 Fed 5304 New2 EXPENDITURES PROPOSED TDA FUND RPA PL - Grant Grant PPM Earmark Part Intern Transit SCMTD Freedom Coastal RSTPX3 05/02/13 AMBAG (AMBAG) County Plng Grant Grant Grant Conserv4 SALARIES, Benefits & Overhead 5 Plan Coordination 95,471 9,422 - 86,049 6 Land Use/Transportation Coordination - - - - - 7 Complete streets plan 46,073 - 46,073 8 SC County sustainable comm and transit corridor plan 5,000 - - 5,000 9 Work Program 30,000 3,000 - 6,882 20,118

10 Unified Corridor Investment Plan - - - - - - 11 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 47,929 2,929 - 20,000 - 25,000 12 Bike Secure 7,500 7,500 - 13 Bike Signage Plan - - - - 14 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network 215,000 - - 215,000 15 Specialized Transportation 48,459 3,000 875 44,584 16 Safe Paths to Transit 5,500 500 - 5,000 17 Regional Transportation Plan for MTP 233,450 - 78,198 132,219 23,033 18 Regional Travel Demand Model & Monitoring 65,000 - - 10,000 55,000 19 On-board transit study 1,748 422 782 544 20 Transit Planning Intern grant 15,629 1,738 323 13,568 21 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 157,618 - - 16,933 43,074 97,611 22 Highway & Roadway Planning 65,302 5,537 - 59,765 23 Salaries, Benefits & Overhead Subtotal 1,039,679 34,048 1,980 322,411 250,411 46,073 5,000 145,644 215,000 - 13,568 544 - 5,000 - - 2425 Services & Supplies - 26 Passthrough Programs27 Bike To Work Program (Ecology Action) 50,000 50,000 - 28 Bike & Ped Safety (Community Traffic Safety Coalition) 100,000 100,000 - 29 Safe Paths to Transit 160,000 - 160,000 30 Bike Signage Program - - - 3132 Professional Services33 Sacramento Assistant 36,000 36,000 - 34 Washington Assistant 44,600 44,600 - 35 Engineering and Other Technical Consultants 65,000 44,639 20,361 36 STARS for Regional Transportation Plan 56,800 17,000 - 39,800 37 On-board transit study 6,260 - 2,124 4,136 38 SC Metro for on-board transit study 1,105 - 1,105 39 Complete Streets plan consultant 7,500 - 7,500 40 MBSST Network Master Plan Consultant 410,372 - 160,372 250,000 41 Unified Corridor Investment Plan Consultant 103,405 - 103,405 4243 RTC Work Element Related Items44 Bike Secure Program - - 45 Traffic Monitoring services 70,000 14,270 37,837 17,893 46 Printing RTP, RTIP, other Documents and Pub Info Materials 12,000 8,000 4,000 - 47 MBSST Network Plan Outreach 20,000 - - 20,000 48 Transfer to Rail/Trail Authority 110,000 98,629 11,371 49 Subtotal Services & Supplies 1,253,042 396,138 92,693 - - 7,500 - 17,893 180,372 103,405 - 1,105 4,136 160,000 250,000 39,800 5051 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,292,721 430,186 94,673 322,411 250,411 53,573 5,000 163,537 395,372 103,405 13,568 1,649 4,136 165,000 250,000 39,800 52

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Cory Caletti, Senior Transportation Planner/Bicycle Coordinator RE: Bicycle Committee Membership Appointments RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission make the following appointments to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle Advisory Committee:

1. Kem Akol (voting) and Holly Tyler (alternate) to represent District 1; 2. Peter Scott (voting) and Will Menchine (alternate) to represent District 3; 3. Amelia Conlen (voting) to represent District 4; 4. Rick Hyman (voting) to represent District 5; 5. Myrna Sherman (voting) to represent the City of Watsonville; and 6. Rob Straka (voting) and Piet Canin (alternate) to represent Bike to Work.

BACKGROUND Seats on the Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle Committee correspond to City and Supervisorial District seats on the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). Commissioners may nominate individuals for the RTC’s consideration. Two additional seats for Bike to Work and the Community Traffic Safety Coalition also exist and nominations are made by the respective agency. Seats for three-year terms on the Bicycle Committee expire on a rotating basis. This March 2013, positions expired for the Districts 1, 3 and 5, the City of Watsonville and Bike to Work. The Bicycle Committee’s description, role and membership are shown on the 2004 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Rules and Regulations (Attachment 1). A draft roster is also included as Attachment 2. DISCUSSION Seats on the Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle Committee for Districts 1, 3 and 5, the City of Watsonville and Bike to Work expired at the end of March, 2013. Bicycle Committee members and alternates representing those areas indicated interest in reappointment and their requests were forwarded to respective Commissioners. All applications are also on file and available for review upon request. Vacancies exist for voting and alternate seats representing Districts 4; the alternate seat representing District 5; and the alternate seat representing the City Watsonville. Staff has been working to recruit applicants to fill vacancies and welcomes recommendations from Commissioners.

Bicycle Committee Membership Appointments Page 2

District 1 Appointments - Voting member Kem Akol and alternate Holly Tyler are both seeking reappointment to serve in the same capacity. Mr. Akol has served actively on the Committee since 1993 and Ms. Tyler has served as his alternate since 2010. Staff forwarded the two requests and applications to Commissioner Leopold who nominated Mr. Akol and Ms. Tyler for the voting and alternate seats, respectively, for three year terms (Attachment 3 – a). District 3 Appointments - For District 3, voting member Peter Scott, who was first appointed in 2007, and Will Menchine, an alternate serving on the Committee since 2002, indicated interest in continuing service to the Bicycle Committee in their current roles. Their requests were forwarded to Commissioner Coonerty who nominated Mr. Scott and Mr. Menchine for District 3 voting and alternate seats, respectively, for three year terms (Attachment 3 – b). District 4 Appointment – Currently, both the voting and alternate seats for District 4 are vacant. Amelia Conlen, Director of People Power, submitted an application to Commissioner Caput to represent District 4. While Ms. Conlen resides in District 1, there is not residency requirement in order to represent a certain District. As Director of People Power, Ms. Conlen has attended Bicycle Committee meetings regularly, is well versed in bicycle planning and policy, and is committed to improving the bicycle network in all of Santa Cruz County. Since this is the first time Ms. Conlen has applied for membership, her application as well as Commissioner Caput’s nomination are attached (Attachment 3 – c). District 5 Appointment – Rick Hyman, District 5 voting representative since 1989, reapplied for appointment to the same position. His request and application was forwarded to Commissioner McPherson who nominated Mr. Hyman to continue service for another three-year term (Attachment 3 – d). City of Watsonville Appointment - Voting member Myrna Sherman is seeking reappointment to serve as the City of Watsonville’s representative. While Ms. Sherman was just appointed last September, her seat’s three-year term expired at the end of March, 2013 and therefore, reappointment is required. Ms. Sherman’s request and application was forwarded to Commissioner Montesino who nominated Ms. Sherman as the City of Watsonville’s voting member for the next three-year term (Attachment 3 - e). Bike to Work - A new representative is being appointed as the Bike to Work voting member. Rob Straka, a long time bicycle enthusiast, racer, commuter, advocate and Bike to Work day event volunteer, has been selected to serve in the voting member capacity. Since this is the first time Mr. Straka has applied for membership, his application is attached. Piet Canin, as Ecology Action’s Vice President of Transportation, has the authority to make the appointment. Mr. Canin selected himself to serve as the alternate. Mr. Straka’s application and the nomination letter is provided in Attachment 3 – f. Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission approve nominations submitted by Commissioners Leopold, Coonerty, Caput, McPherson, Montesino, as well as Bike to Work’s Transportation Division Vice President, to serve on to the RTC’s Bicycle Committee.

Bicycle Committee Membership Appointments Page 3

SUMMARY Seats on the Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle Committee for Districts 1, 3 and 5, the City of Watsonville and Bike to Work expired at the end of March, 2013. Reappointment requests were submitted from all members and were forwarded to the respective Commissioner or appropriate party. A new appointment request was also forwarded as appropriate. Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission appoint the individuals nominated to fill those seats.

1) SCCRTC Rules and Regulations: Exhibit 4 – Bicycle Committee description Attachments:

2) Draft Bicycle Committee roster 3) Nomination letters

\\Rtcserv2\shared\RTC\TC2013\TC0413\BikeCom_appointments\SR_BikeComAppointments13.docx

Attachment 1

BIKE COMMITTEE ROSTER – May, 2013 (Tentative)

Representing Member Name/Contact Info Appointment Dates

District 1 - Voting Soquel, Live Oak, part of Capitola

Kem Akol [email protected] 247-2944

First Appointed: 1993 Term Expires: 3/16

Alternate Holly M. Tyler [email protected] 818-2117


District 2 - Voting Aptos, Corralitos, part of Capitola, Nisene Marks, Freedom, PajDunes

David Casterson, Chair [email protected] 588-2068


Alternate Eric Horton [email protected] 419-7296

First Appointed: 3/09 Term Expires: 3/15

District 3 - Voting Big Basin, Davenport, Bonny Doon, City of Santa Cruz

Peter Scott [email protected] 423-0796


Alternate William Menchine (Will) [email protected] 426-3528


District 4 - Voting Watsonville, part of Corralitos

Amelia Conlen [email protected] 425-0665


Alternate Vacant Term Expires: 3/15

District 5 - Voting SL Valley, Summit, Scotts Valley, part of Santa Cruz

Rick Hyman [email protected]



City of Capitola - Voting Andy Ward, Vice Chair [email protected] 462-6653


Alternate Daniel Kostelec [email protected] 325-9623

First Appointed: Term Expires: 3/14

City of Santa Cruz - Voting

Wilson Fieberling [email protected]


Alternate Carlos Garza [email protected]


City of Scotts Valley -Voting

Lex Rau [email protected] 419-1817


Alternate Gary Milburn 427-3839 hm [email protected]/438-2888 ext 210 wk


City of Watsonville - Voting

Myrna Sherman [email protected]

Term Expires: 3/16


Bike To Work - Voting

Rob Straka [email protected] 909-967-0204


Alternate Piet Canin [email protected] 426-5925 ext. 127


Community Traffic Safety Coalition - Voting

Leo Jed [email protected] 425-2650


Alternate Jim Langley [email protected] 423-7248


All phone numbers have the (831) area code unless otherwise noted. \\Rtcserv2\shared\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\BikeCom_appointments\BikeComRoster_May2013.docx

Attachment 2



mailto:[email protected]%20%20425-0665�





From: Susan GreeneTo: Cory CalettiSubject: RTC"s Bike Com member nominationsDate: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:48:55 PM

Commissioner Leopold is appointing Kem Akol as his voting representative on the BicycleCommittee and Holly Tyler as the alternate representative. Susan Greene, Analyst Supervisor John Leopold 701 Ocean St., Room 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 454-2200 [email protected]

Attachment 3 - a

mailto:[email protected]



Attachment 3 - b

From: Greg CaputTo: Cory CalettiSubject: Re: Bike CommitteeDate: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:44:13 AM

To whom it may Concern,

I, Greg Caput as Santa Cruz County Supervisor for the 4th district, recommend AmeliaConlen, Director of People Power of Santa Cruz County as representative on the Bike Committee asthe District 4 voting member. Sincerely, Greg CaputSanta Cruz County Supervisor,Fourth District(831)454-2200701 Ocean Street, Room 500Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Attachment 3 - c



Attachment 3 - d

Attachment 3 - e

Attachment 3 - f

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Jason Laning, Administrative Assistant III RE: Approval of Appointment of Commissioners to the Budget and

Administration/Personnel Committee RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission approve the following appointments by the RTC Chair to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee: Commissioners Neal Coonerty, Eduardo Montesino, Greg Caput, Zach Friend, John Leopold and Bruce McPherson. BACKGROUND In order to ensure efficient and effective operations, the Budget and Administration/Personnel (B&A/P) Committee serves to review and monitor issues relating to the budget, work program, and other administrative functions of the Commission and makes recommendations to the Commission regarding such items. The committee also functions as the Personnel Committee to review personnel matters, and to conduct an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director. DISCUSSION At the March 21, 2013 special meeting of the RTC, Commission Alternate Schiffrin reported that Commission Chair Coonerty appointed Commissioners Coonerty, Montesino, Caput, Friend, Leopold and McPherson to the B&A/P Committee. According to the RTC’s Bylaws for Commission Committees, “Commissioner appointments to committees shall be made annually at the March Commission meeting by the Chair with concurrence of the Commission.” Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission approve the following appointments by Chair Coonerty to the Budget and Administration/Personnel Committee: Commissioners Neal Coonerty, Eduardo Montesino, Greg Caput, Zach Friend, John Leopold and Bruce McPherson. SUMMARY RTC bylaws require that committee appointments be made with concurrence of the Commission. Staff recommends that that the Regional Transportation Commission approve Chair Coonerty’s appointments to the B&A/P Committee.

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\SR_B&AP_Appointments13.docx

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE

May 2013 Through

July 2013

All meetings are subject to cancellation when there are no action items to be considered by the board or committee

Please visit our website for meeting agendas and locations www.sccrtc.org/meetings/

Meeting

Date Meeting

Day Meeting Type Meeting Time Meeting Place

5/2/13 Thursday Regional Transportation Commission 9:00 am Capitola City Council Chambers

5/13/13 Monday Bicycle Committee (note special time) 6:00 pm Commission Offices

5/14/13 Tuesday Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee (note special date/time) 1:00 pm Commission Offices

5/16/13 Thursday Transportation Policy Workshop 9:00 am Commission Offices

5/16/13 Thursday Interagency Technical Advisory Committee (note special location) 1:30 pm City of Watsonville*

6/6/13 Thursday Regional Transportation Commission 9:00 am Watsonville City Council Chambers

6/10/13 Monday Bicycle Committee 6:30 pm Commission Offices

6/11/13 Tuesday Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee (note special location) 1:30 pm RTC Watsonville

Offices

6/13/13 Thursday Budget & Administration/Personnel Committee 3:30 pm CAO Conference Room

6/20/13 Thursday Transportation Policy Workshop – Canceled (special meeting scheduled for June 26)

6/20/13 Thursday Interagency Technical Advisory Committee 1:30 pm Commission Offices

6/26/13 Wednesday Special Meeting - Transportation Policy Workshop (note special date) 9:00 am Commission Offices

NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY

Commission Offices -1523 Pacific Ave- Santa Cruz, CA

RTC Watsonville Offices-275 Main St Ste 450-Watsonville, CA

Board of Supervisors Chambers/CAO/RDA Conference room-701 Ocean St-5th floor-Santa Cruz, CA

City of Capitola-Council Chambers-420 Capitola Ave-Capitola, CA

City of Santa Cruz-Council Chambers-809 Center St-Santa Cruz, CA

City of Scotts Valley-Council Chamber-1 Civic Center Dr-Scotts Valley, CA

City of Watsonville-Council Chambers-275 Main St Ste 400-Watsonville, CA * May ITAC meeting in City of Watsonville will be held at either the Public Works or Library Meeting. See ITAC agenda.

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\3 month meeting schedule - TC0513.docx

http://www.sccrtc.org/meetings/�

Correspondence Log May 2, 2013

1

Date Letter Rec'd/Sent Format Incoming/

Outgoing Response First Last Organization First Last Organization Subject

01/18/13 Letter O Santa Cruz Association of Realtors Veronica Elsea

SCCRTC Pedestrian Safety Work Group

ChairFree Standing Realtor Signs

03/13/13 Letter O Maura Twomey AMBAG Luis Mendez SCCRTC FY2012/13 Invoice #3 - Second Quarter CMAQ

03/13/13 Letter O

Kirk Hal

Tove Clay

Ance Anjo

Beatty Kempf

Community Bridges E&D TAC SCMTD

Senior Council

Karena Pushnik SCCRTC FY2013-14 Section 5310 Grant Local Review Committee

03/14/13 Letter O Mark McCumsey Caltrans, District 5 Luis Mendez SCCRTCContract No. 74A0141 Monterey Bay Area Travel Information System

03/14/13 Letter O Mark McCumsey Caltrans, District 5 Luis Mendez SCCRTCContract No. 74A0141 Monterey Bay Area Travel Information System

03/14/13 Letter I George Dondero SCCRTC Kenneth Talmage AMBAG

Appointment of George Dondero as an Ex Officio Member of the AMBAG Board of Directors

03/15/13 Letter O Maura Twomey AMBAG Luis Mendez SCCRTCFY 2012/13 Second Quarter FHWA PL Invoice and the Quarterly Progress Report

TO FROM


2



TO FROM

03/15/13 Email I JL 03/15/13 SCCRTC James Peterson RTC/IP: Local Passenger Rail

Service

03/15/13 Email I KP 03/15/13 SCCRTC Jan Parks-McKay RTC/IP: Local Passenger Rail

Service

03/16/13 Email I CJ 03/16/13 SCCRTC Joe Martinez RTC/IP: Local Passenger Rail

Service

03/18/13 Email I CJ 03/18/13 SCCRTC Theresia L Rogerson RTC/IP: Local Passenger Rail

Service

03/19/13 Letter O Carl Mosebach Michael's Transportation Service Kim Shultz SCCRTC

Amendment #1 to the Agreement with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

03/19/13 Letter O Charles Giubbini Kim Shultz SCCRTC

Agreement with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission for a Temporary Construction Easement

03/19/13 Letter O Luis Duazo Caltrans, District 5 Luis Mendez SCCRTCInvoice #14 Bond-Corridor Mobility Improvement (CMI) and STIP/RIP Funds


3



TO FROM

03/20/13 Letter O Kristin Diggs Farley Associates Kim Shultz SCCRTC

Request for Public Records, Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project RGW Construction, Inc.

03/20/13 Letter O Rachel Zack MTC Ginger Dykaar SCCRTCSafe on 17 Invoice: October 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012

03/21/13 Letter ISanta Cruz County

Regional Transportation Commission

Jack NelsonJanuary 2013 Scientific American article, "The Coming Megafloods"

03/22/13 Letter O Alan Romero MBUAPCD Luis Mendez SCCRTCInvoice: 2 09-39 Bike Secure-Phase IV July 1, 2011 - January 31, 2013

03/22/13 Letter I SCCRTC Peter Stanger Unsafe Driving Conditions - Aptos Village Construction

03/28/13 Email I KP 03/28/13 SCCRTC James G Zoulas U.S Army Corps of

EngineersFuture Road Construction in Santa Cruz County

03/28/13 Email I KP 03/28/13 SCCRTC Nathaniel James RTC/IP: Local Passenger Rail

Service


4



TO FROM

03/29/13 Email I KS 04/03/13 SCCRTC Laura Caldwell Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey

Auxiliary Lane Update

04/02/13 Letter O Alan Romero MBUAPCD George Dondero SCCRTC Final Summary Report for AB2766 Grant 09-39

04/04/13 Invoice O Luis Duazo Caltrans, District 5 Luis Mendez SCCRTCInvoice #15 for Bond-Corridor Mobility Improvement (CMI) and STIP/RIP Funds

04/06/13 Email I CJ 04/06/13 SCCRTC Adriana Lugo Park Ave and Cabrillo College

Dr Intersection

04/08/13 Email I KP 04/08/13 SCCRTC Dana Jones Future Street-Side

Improvements

04/09/13 Letter O Neal Coonerty County of Santa Cruz A John Daugherty SCCRTC E&D TAC Chair

Thank you for Supporting Restoration of Metro Bus Service to the Frederick Street/Gault/La Posada Neighborhood

04/09/13 Email I CC 04/11/13 SCCRTC Victoria Rallojay Arana Gulch Bike Path


5



TO FROM

04/12/13 Letter O Pam Warfield Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) Daniel Nikuna SCCRTC Triennial Performance Audit

Contract

04/12/13 Email I CC 04/12/13 SCCRTC Astrid Shannon Secure Bike Parking in

Downtown Felton

04/15/13 Letter O Kim Shultz SCCRTC David Casterson SCCRTC Bicycle Committee Chair

Presentation for the Preliminary Designs for the Planned Highway 1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project at Chanticleer Avenue

04/15/13 Letter O Herman Mondo Luis Mendez SCCRTC

New Ownership of Lease of Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Premises With Assigned Lease Audit No. 179286 for Open Storage Purposes

04/15/13 Letter O Aptos Station Development Luis Mendez SCCRTC

New Ownership of Lease of Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Premises With Assigned Lease Audit No. 193091 for Beautification Purposes

04/15/13 Letter O Jon Bombaci City of Santa Cruz Luis Mendez SCCRTC Rental Invoice for Property #209914

04/15/13 Letter O Lawrence Kovalenko Luis Mendez SCCRTC

New Ownership of Lease of Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Premises With Assigned Lease Audit No. 708710 for Beautification Purposes


6



TO FROM

04/16/13 Letter O Hilary Bryant City of Santa Cruz David Casterson SCCRTC Bicycle Committee Chair

Reinstatement of the City of Santa Cruz Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee

04/16/13 Email I KS 04/16/13 SCCRTC Bradley Sadek Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey

Auxiliary Lane Project

04/16/13 Email I KP 04/16/13 SCCRTC Lisa Hindley Highway 1 Project Near Porter

St/Bay Ave Exit

04/18/13 Email I Rachel Moriconi SCCRTC Drew FentonPublic Request for Information on a CIP-Bear Creek Road/Preston Terrace

S:\Correspondence Logs\correslogfy1213\[1305.xlsx]Sheet1

Bruce Sawhill: Train tracks an investment in our future By Bruce Sawhill, Santa Cruz Sentinel contributor, Posted: 04/20/2013

Recently it has been suggested that tearing out the Santa Cruz Branch Line train tracks would make building a trail easier. We'd love to see a trail as soon as possible, perhaps yesterday. Since the tracks aren't currently being used for any train traffic, why not? The reason is the long view. The tracks are 137 years old, and we need to be thinking of the next 137, taking us to the year 2150. It is highly likely that rail will play an important role in our future.

1. Freight rail: Rail is a very efficient way to move freight, and is currently experiencing enormous nationwide growth because of that, having "risen from the dead" in the past 40 years to challenge trucking. In the not too distant future, most goods that are not both expensive and lightweight will travel by rail and cover the last few miles in delivery trucks. And it works both coming and going: The Pajaro Valley produces enough produceyearly to fill thousands of refrigerated rail cars.

2. Passenger rail: California is moving aggressively toward passenger rail because, even though it is expensive, it is cheaper than the alternatives of building more roads and runways and airports and it is a much less impactful way to move people around than millions of cars. How will Santa Cruz County connect to this California network? It is handy to have a rail line available, since we could not afford to create one if we didn't.

3. Local transit: The rail line was used to settle the county in the 19th century, and the distribution of population still reflects this fact. Even though the average density of the county is very low (about 500 per square mile), the density along the rail line in the central county is unusually high for communities of this size, 8,000-12,000 people per square mile, typical of much bigger cities such as Seattle or Oakland. One-third of the county's population lives within a half-mile of the line, and one-half within one mile.

This density means that a rapid streetcar type service utilizing the rail corridor for the bulk of its route, running frequently and utilizing passing sidings could serve many thousands of passengers daily.

To summarize: Just because there's no fruit on the tree right now doesn't mean one should chop it down. Keep the tracks. They are an investment in the future.

Bruce Sawhill is chair of the Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail & Trail.

BLOGS // AUTOMATON

Study: Intelligent Cars Could Boost Highway Capacity by 273%POSTED BY: EVAN ACKERMAN / TUE, SEPTEMBER 04, 2012

You're a terrible driver. Yes, you. Terrible. At least, you're terrible compared to a robot, which is smarter,faster, and more experienced. In fact, if we all just give up driving on highways and let robots take over forus, we could effectively end highway congestion as we know it by boosting the capacity of our existingroads by a staggering 273%.

On a highway filled to capacity by human drivers (which is about 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane), aboutfive percent of the available road space is taken up by cars. Five percent. This is because humans are sobad at driving that we need lanes that are twice the size of our cars, and at highway speeds, we have tokeep between 40 and 50 meters away from the car in front of us.

Researchers at Colombia University took a look at what would happen if we started relying onautonomous or semi-autonomous cars equipped with sensors and/or intervehicular communicationssystems, and the increase in efficiency is fairly incredible, simply due to the fact that cars can safely travel closer together. When traveling at 100 kph, if all vehicles on the road are simply equipped with adaptivecruise control, highway capacity can safely increase by a factor of 1.4. And if all vehicles on the road areequipped with both adaptive cruise sensors and communication, capacity can be increased by a factor of3.7. And this increase is without any infrastructure modification: it's purely from making our cars smarterwith technology that is commercially available today.

Study: Intelligent Cars Could Boost Highway Capacity by 273% - IEEE S... http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/intellige...

Page 1

So, with 100% communicating vehicles, you'll get 12,000 vehicles per hour zipping along at 120 kph withinabout 6 meters of each other. Not too shabby, right? Of course, you have to keep in mind that we'll likelyto be limited by the percentage of adoption of these technologies, as illustrated in these graphs:

We may not notice the difference right away, but as more and more cars being to implement sensors andcommunication, the overall benefits will increase drastically.

Decreasing highway congestion is great, and we're all for that. But, it's really one of the more minorbenefits of partially or fully autonomous vehicles. Benefit number one is obvious: a car that's equipped wita bunch of sensors and that knows what all the other cars around it are doing is a much safer place to bethan a car driven by a human. I don't care how good of a driver you are (or you think you are): your car,being for all practical purposes a robot, can digest a huge amount of data and make a decision about thebest course of action to take in approximately the same amount of time it takes for you to move your footfrom the gas to the brake. Our brains just don't work fast enough to keep up, and if something goeswrong, your car will be vastly better than you are at keeping you (and your passengers) from harm.

The other big benefit that we're looking forward to is the opportunity to not have to drive anymore, or atleast, not have to pay attention while driving. A car that drives itself (at least on the highway) would giveus the chance to be productive instead of wasting our lives going from Point A to Point B and then backfive days a week. Plus, robot cars never get distracted, never get tired, never talk on the phone, neverspill coffee on themselves, and don't care in the least about how attractive the person is in the caralongside. The fact is, robots have the potential to be the ideal chauffeurs for all of us.

Every time we talk about robot cars we have to mention two things. Thing One is that all of the technologyto do this stuff already exists. And not just in Google's fully autonomous cars: there are cars that you canbuy today that have adaptive cruise control that can sense the cars in front of them, blind spot sensorsthat can see cars to the side, and lane sensors that can track lane markings. Vehicle to vehiclecommunication is nearly a reality too, and the technology has been successfully demonstrated in Europe inthe form of road trains.

Thing Two is that the world just isn't ready for robot cars. The government has no idea how to managethem, and manufacturers are understandably concerned about liability. Here, though, things have startedto move a little bit, with first Nevada and now California passing legislation governing their testing and use.This isn't going to be a fast transition, but when it happens, it'll be one of the biggest transportationrevolutions since the invention of, let's say, walking.

Highway Capacity Benefits from Using Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication and Sensors for Collision

Avoidance, by Patcharinee Tientrakool, Ya-Chi Ho, and Nicholas F. Maxemchuk from Columbia University,was presented last year at the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference.

Via [ NBF ]

Study: Intelligent Cars Could Boost Highway Capacity by 273% - IEEE S... http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/intellige...

Page 2

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Kim Shultz, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) receive the monthly report on construction activities for the Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project. BACKGROUND On January 5, 2012, the RTC authorized a construction contract for work to begin on the Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes project. A Notice to Proceed was issued to the contractor on February 3, 2012, following receipt of performance bonds and insurance certificates. DISCUSSION RTC Resident Engineer, Bruce Shewchuk, will present an oral report on current construction activities and will respond to questions. Since the last briefing in March the project has advanced into Phase 2 of the project which focuses on reconstruction of the La Fonda Avenue overcrossing. Through the first 3 weeks of April, construction crews successfully completed paving the auxiliary lanes and shoulder in both directions, shifted the k-rail, restriped the travel way, and shifted traffic to create working space in the median area around the center column of the bridge. On the night of April 15th and 16th, crews demolished the old column and excavated the foundation. As was the case with demolition of the bridge, the contractor broke up the material in place to be able to separate and recycle the concrete and steel, and work began immediately on laying the foundation for the column of the new bridge. The steel reinforcement and the form for the new column should be in place and ready to poor the concrete early in May. Construction crews will then work on constructing and setting in place the falsework for the center section of the bridge, either side of the center column. Erecting the falsework will require closing the highway at night in alternating directions, always maintaining traffic flow in one direction. Advance notice will be provided via Enews and media advisories as the date of that work approaches.

Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project May 2, 2013 Page 2 Meanwhile, right-of-way issues have been resolved regarding the location of the sound walls on the northbound side of the highway. Construction is expected to resume on the walls in the next few weeks. Construction of the sound walls is not a critical path item in meeting the scheduled completion of the project or the opening of the La Fonda Avenue Overcrossing. As previously reported, the contractor continues to claim that differing site conditions required a more extensive shoring system than originally anticipated on the northside of the highway. RTC’s construction engineer continues to closely monitor the work to assist in resolving any potential claims of extra costs associated with this work. Construction Financial Status As of this writing, six contract change orders (CCO’s) have been approved for a total amount of $149,492. As of this writing, there have been no new CCOs approved since the last staff report, however, several CCOs are currently in process and will be reported at the June meeting. The contract contingency balance remains at $937,372. Through 13 months of construction activity, the approved progress payments total $5,943,679 or approximately 54% of the approved construction budget. The progress payment for the current period is still under review by the resident construction engineer and will be reported at the next meeting. Following is the current contract cost accounting:

Updated Contract Amount $ 10,088,131 Contingency Balance $ 937,372 Approved Contract Budget $ 11,025,503 Progress Payments To Date $ 5,943,679

Remain ing Contract Budget $ 5,081,824 Additional contract change orders are anticipated in the coming weeks, including: unexpected extra work associated with the different site conditions and drainage needs on the north slope including connection to the drainage system on Oak Street and installation of a new drainage system crossing the freeway west of La Fonda; tree mitigation for construction of soundwalls; lighting modifications for the La Fonda Avenue Overcrossing, and K-rail openings on the northbound and southbound side of the highway for the removal of dirt. Before construction activities began, the RTC approved a set of policies for contract change orders and established a contract change orders ad-hoc committee composed of five Commissioners. It has not been necessary to convene the ad-hoc committee up to this point but if any contract change order is over $100,000, the ad-hoc committee will be convened. SUMMARY Work has begun on the 2nd Phase of the construction project with work focused on completion of the new La Fonda Avenue Overcrossing. The center column of the

Highway 1 Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project May 2, 2013 Page 3 new bridge should be completed in early May and work began on the center falsework sections of the new bridge. Erecting the falsework will require closing the highway in alternating directions at night, always maintaining traffic flow in one direction. Advance notice will be provided via Enews and media advisories as the date of that work approaches. The right-of-way issues for the soundwall on the northbound side of the highway have been resolved and work should resume on the soundwalls in the next few weeks. Through 13 months of construction activity, the approved progress payments total $5,943,679 or approximately 54% of the approved construction budget. The project is on track to be completed between the 18-24 month construction period anticipated at the beginning of the project and within the allowed construction budget.

\\Rtcserv2\shared\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\Hwy1-AuxLane\StaffReport-130502.docx

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Kim Shultz, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Highway 1 Corridor Environmental Analysis RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) receive a report on activities to complete the Tier 1 corridor level analysis and the Tier 2 project build analysis for future improvements on the Highway 1 corridor. BACKGROUND In September 2003, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), in partnership with Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated preliminary design and environmental studies to add high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to Highway 1 from Morrissey Boulevard in Santa Cruz to Larkin Valley/San Andreas Road in Aptos. Progress on the project was hampered by the need to update right-of-way monument surveys on the central section of the project, delays in the availability of the regional travel demand model, resolution of project design elements among all affected parties, and a decision to subordinate work on the HOV lane study in order to advance progress on the environmental document for the Soquel/Morrissey auxiliary lanes project. In the summer of 2011, the FHWA advised the project team that changes in the emphasis and scrutiny of federal environmental regulations, combined with the absence of committed revenues to construct the HOV Lane project, required a change in the format of the environmental document to maintain eligibility to use federal funds on the project. In late 2011, the RTC adopted a revised approach to the project best described as a combined tiered environmental document that consists of:

Tier 1 – program level corridor analysis of the HOV lanes and the transportation system management (TSM) alternatives; and,

Tier 2 – project level build analysis of auxiliary lanes between 41st Avenue and Soquel Drive, and a bike/pedestrian overcrossing at Chanticleer Avenue

Through this approach, the final document will allow disclosure of the two design alternatives to reduce congestion on the Highway 1 corridor, including the projects’ impacts, costs, and benefits (Tier 1), while also providing the environmental documentation necessary to proceed with the next construction project to relieve congestion on Highway 1 (Tier 2).

Highway 1 Corridor Environmental Analysis Page 2

DISCUSSION Significant progress has been made on the combined tiered environmental document working with a new Caltrans environmental team based in District 5 in San Luis Obispo. As of this writing, 15 of the 17 technical reports prepared by the consultant team have been reviewed and approved by the respective environmental specialists within Caltrans. The technical reports provide the foundation of the draft environmental report and are used through the project design process to identify, avoid, and/or take necessary and appropriate action to mitigate potential project impacts. Project manager of the consultant team Parag Mehta with NV5 (formally Nolte Associates), and environmental manager Jeffrey Bingham with Parsons, will provide an oral report on the status of the project. This report will include an overview of the project scope, further detail on the tiered environmental documents and alternative project design features, and the project schedule. The target date for release of the draft environmental document for public review and comment is early next year, 2014. SUMMARY In 2003 the RTC, in partnership with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), began preliminary design/environmental analysis to add high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to Highway 1. The absence of committed revenues to construct the project combined with changes in federal environmental regulations lead to the need to change the form of the environmental document in late 2011 to maintain eligibility to use federal funds on the project. Principal members of the consultant project team will provide a report on the status of the project effort including an overview of the environmental documents currently under development, alternative project design features, and the project schedule.

\\Rtcserv2\shared\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\Hwy1CorridorStudy\StaffReport-130502.docx

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) FROM: Luis Pavel Mendez, Deputy Director RE: Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 Proposed Budget

RECOMMENDATIONS The Budget and Administration/Personnel (B&A/P) Committee and staff recommend that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the proposed FY 2013-14 Budget as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

BACKGROUND At the beginning of each calendar year, staff prepares a proposed Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) budget for the following fiscal year. The proposed budget is presented to the Budget and Administration/Personnel (B&A/P) Committee for review and recommendation to the RTC. This timing is consistent with the RTC’s Rules and Regulations and early budget approval allows the RTC to inform claimants of projected Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for their use in developing their organizations’ budgets for the following fiscal year. At its February 14, 2013 meeting, the B&A/P Committee reviewed and recommended proosed FY 2013-14 budget to the RTC. That proposed budget was scheduled to be considered at the March 21, 2013 meeting of the RTC, but was postponed due to significant reduction in planning funding from AMBAG that was communicated only days before the meeting. At its April 11, 2013 meeting, the B&A/P Committee reviewed and recommended approval of a revised proposed FY 2013-14 budget for the RTC. DISCUSSION Transportation agencies continue to face financial challenges resulting from the worst economic recession in decades. The economy has been recovering but economic activity is still below its pre-recession level. The recession caused a significant reduction in Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues but they have been increasing over the past two years. The proposed FY 2013-14 Budget (Exhibit A of Attachment 1

) continues to address the financial challenges with the aid of some grant funds and proposes increased apportionments to TDA recipients.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Apportionments (budget pp. 1 & 2) One of the main sources of funding for transportation in Santa Cruz County is the TDA, which established that ¼% of the State sales tax would go to transportation. Attachment 2 shows actual and estimated TDA revenues for FYs 2006-07 to 2013-14. Between FYs 2006-07 and

FY 2013-14 Proposed RTC Budget Page 2

2009-10 TDA revenues decreased almost 18%. Revenues increased in FY’s 2010-11 and 2011-12 and more increases are anticipated as the economic recovery continues. Therefore, consistent with the Auditor Controller’s estimate, the proposed FY 2013-14 Budget (Exhibit A of Attachment 1

) includes an increase in TDA apportionments of 10.85% for all TDA recipients except Bike to Work and the Community Traffic Safety Coalition. In FY 2011-12 when everyone received TDA revenue increases of 4.86%, Bike to Work and the Community Traffic Safety Coalition were restored to their pre-recession funding commitments, which equated to an increase of 16.2%. In addition, Bike to Work received an augmentation of $10,000 in FY 2011-12 for a total of $50,000. The funding commitments and augmentations previously approved for Bike to Work and the Community Traffic Safety Coalition continue into the proposed FY 2013-14 budget.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Planning (PL) Funds and TDA Every year, the FHWA provides funding to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to meet federal transportation planning requirements for the region. Federal and state transportation planning responsibilities in Santa Cruz County are also fulfilled by the RTC. In addition, the RTC is not as removed from the local communities; therefore, the RTC can better engage the diverse local communities in all facets of transportation planning and produce transportation planning documents that better reflect the communities’ input as is necessary to meet federal and state transportation planning requirements. For this and other reasons, AMBAG established a funding formula for FHWA PL funds through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the RTC and other regional transportation planning agencies in the region. Traditionally, the RTC has received about $240,000 to $260,000 per year in FHWA PL funds. The level of work that the RTC does to meet federal transportation planning requirements has never been limited to the amount of FHWA PL funding received from AMBAG. The RTC also uses state and local funds to fulfill those requirements. RTC significantly overmatches the FHWA PL funds and AMBAG has used that overmatch as a match for the federal funds that it retains because AMBAG did not have any other way to adequately provide a match for the funding it receives. AMBAG no longer needs to use any overmatch provided by RTC because the State of California has a high level of matching credits for federal funds from bridge tolls and AMBAG was recently allowed to use those credits. Recently, the FHWA communicated to AMBAG that FHWA PL funds cannot be distributed by formula. Therefore, the MOU was invalidated and for FY 2012-13 AMBAG established with the RTC a continuing cooperative agreement (CCA), which does not guarantee any amount of funding. The amount of funding is determined each year by AMBAG. For FY 2012-13 the amount of funding provided to the RTC was similar to traditional amounts as had been established by formula. The RTC received $250,411 for FY 2012-13. However, for FY 2013-14 AMBAG proposes to provide $100,000 to the RTC for a reduction of $150,411. This does not mean that the work that the RTC must perform to meet federal transportation planning requirements will be any less. FHWA, AMBAG and the community will still expect the RTC to participate fully in transportation planning that meets federal requirements and the community’s priorities.


Because there is no longer an MOU with a funding formula between AMBAG and the RTC and the existing cooperative agreement does not guarantee any level of funding, the RTC does not have a mechanism to secure a greater level of FHWA PL funding from AMBAG. Therefore, the proposed budget eliminates funding the Sacramento assistant ($36,000) and using $114,411 in anticipated FY 2012-13 Transportation Development Account (TDA) surplus revenues. This was the solution recommended by the B&A/P Committee. The B&A/P Committee also directed staff to meet with Santa Cruz METRO staff and AMBAG staff to discuss potential on-going funding solutions. A meeting has been scheduled for May 2, 2013. AMBAG is also asking the RTC for a contribution of $57,500 towards the cost of the environmental document for the 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MTP environmental document also serves as the environmental document for the regional transportation plan (RTPs) produced by RTC. The proposed FY 2013-14 budget does not include funding to contribute toward the environmental document. Staff proposes that AMBAG investigate other means to fund the environmental document. If AMBAG cannot find other means to fund the environmental review document, then the RTC may consider an additional contribution of $57,500 in TDA funds to meet the need. Rideshare (Commute Solutions) Budget (budget p. 5) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds that were programmed for the Commute Solutions program will likely be fully expended in FY 2012-13; therefore, the program will use Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Exchange funds programmed by the RTC to the program. Commute Solutions will continue the Carpool Incentive and the Park and Ride Lot Improvement programs into FY 2013-14 with carryover funds. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) (budget p. 7) The FSP program receives state funds specifically allocated to the program by formula. Unfortunately, these funds are insufficient to provide FSP service on both Highways 1 and 17. Therefore, the RTC must continually apply for additional funds from various sources to continue the Highway 1 FSP service. For FY 2013-14, the FSP budget includes RSTP Exchange funds recently programmed by the RTC to the FSP. When the RTC has not been able to secure other grant funds for the program, the RTC has used reserves from the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) program. However, reserves in the SAFE program cannot sustain the FSP program for very long. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) (budget p. 6) The SAFE program was established by state law in the late 1980’s to provide call boxes on state highways. Counties who establish a SAFE receive a $1 fee per year on vehicle registrations for all vehicles registered within that county. The funds are used to provide the call box system on state highways, provide extra CHP enforcement on Highway 17 through the Safe on 17 program and fund other motorist aid services as approved by the RTC. The SAFE budget includes estimated carryover grant funds to complete the 511 Traveler Information System implementation plan.


Rail/Trail Authority Budget (budget p. 8) The RTC completed the purchase of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line in FY 2012-13 so the funds used for that will not be in the FY 2013-14 budget. However, the funds to be used for the structures rehabilitation and other improvements will be carried over to FY 2013-14. Highway 1 Auxiliary and HOV Lanes Projects (budget pp. 9 & 10) Construction for the Highway 1 Soquel to Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes project will be mostly completed by the end of FY 2012-13. Some of the project construction along with the associated budget will be carried over into FY 2013-14. Work to complete the Highway 1 HOV Lanes project environmental documents will continue into FY 2013-14. Because the draft environmental documents are anticipated to be released in FY 2013-14 significantly more work is estimated to conduct public outreach, address public questions and prepare responses to comments. Planning Budget (budget pp. 11, 12 and 13) The planning budget includes the regular funds used every year to meet the RTC’s obligations for transportation planning in Santa Cruz County. These include Rural Planning Assistance; TDA; FHWA PL; and STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM). It also includes funds for specific planning projects that will continue into FY 2013-14. These include the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network master plan and the bike signage plan. The work for the unified corridor investment plan will be done in FY 2013-14 so the grant funds for that project are included. As explained above the amount of FHWA PL funding for the RTC was significantly reduced y AMBAG. Staff Resources (budget p. 16 and throughout proposed budget) The RTC has 16.75 authorized staff positions. In FY 12-13 the RTC budgeted for 16 of those authorized positions. The FY 2013-14 budget proposes funding 15.5 positions, which is a reduction of half a staff position. This is because the transit planning grant funds used to pay for a half-time paid intern positions have been fully spent in FY 2012-13 and the planning intern has completed the project he was hired to do. TDA and RTC Reserves (budget page 15) As established in the RTC Rules and Regulations, the proposed FY 2013-14 budget maintains a TDA reserve fund that is 8% of anticipated TDA funds. In FY 2012-13 the RTC established a goal of 30% of operating costs for the RTC reserve fund and began allocating funds towards meeting that goal. In FY 2012-13, the RTC allocated $286,987 to the restricted reserve, $250,000 of which came from surplus TDA revenues received in FY 2011-12. The restricted reserves together with the operating reserves provide the RTC with a total reserve between 17% and 18% of operating costs. This level of RTC reserves is maintained in the proposed FY 2013-14 budget. During the annual fall budget amendment, the RTC can determine whether to allocate additional funds towards meeting that RTC funds reserve goal with any surplus funds that may be available after the completion of the current fiscal year.


The proposed FY 2013-14 budget is balanced and includes the funding to meet the RTC’s state and federally mandated responsibilities as well as continue the RTC’s priority transportation projects and programs such as: • Continuation of the Highway 1/HOV Lane project tiered environmental analysis • Construction of the Soquel to Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes project • Rehabilitating structures of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line • Continued work to complete and adopt the Master Plan for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary

Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network • Production of the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) • Monitor and participate in local, state and federal efforts to address global warming Therefore, the Budget and Administration/Personnel (B&A/P) Committee and staff recommend that the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving the proposed FY2013-14 RTC Budget as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

SUMMARY The proposed FY 2013-14 budget for the RTC includes continued oversight of the Highway 1 projects, rehabilitation for the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, MBSST Network planning and continuation of on-going RTC projects and programs. Available TDA funds in FY 2013-14 are estimated to be more than 10% higher and TDA apportionments are increased consistent with the estimate. AMBAG significantly reduced the amount of FHWA Planning funds for the RTC; therefore, the proposed budget eliminates funding for the Sacramento assistant and using anticipated FY 2012-13 TDA surplus revenues to make up for the funding reduction. The B&A/P Committee and staff recommend that the RTC approve the proposed FY 2013-14 budget as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 1

.

1. Resolution approving the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 budget Attachments:

2. Actual and estimated Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\FY13-14Budg\FY1314Budg.doc

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. Adopted by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission on the date of May 2, 2013 on the motion of Commissioner duly seconded by Commissioner

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FY 2013-14 BUDGET FOR THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: 1. The FY 2013-14 Budget for the Santa Cruz County Regional

Transportation Commission, as shown in Exhibits A, is hereby adopted.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ______________________________ Neal Coonerty, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ George Dondero, Secretary Attachment: Exhibit A - SCCRTC FY 2013-14 Budget Distribution: RTC Fiscal S:\RESOLUTI\2013\RES0513\BUD&WP FY13-14.doc

EXHIBIT A

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (SCCRTC)

FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 BUDGET

PROPOSED MAY 2, 2013

Table of Contents Page I. BUDGET SUMMARY

A. Projected Revenue Summary..................................... 1 B. Apportionment Summary – TDA and Other Funds................... 2 C. SCCRTC Operating Budget Summary............................... 3

II. SCCRTC OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL - BY WORK PROGRAM A. SCCRTC - Administration...................................... .4 B. Rideshare .................................................... 5 C. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE)............. .6 D. Freeway Service Patrol (FSP).................................. 7

E. Rail/Trail Authority.......................................... 8 F. Highway 1 Environmental Document and Design ................. .9 G. Highway 1 Construction ..................................... .10 H. SCCRTC Planning (all other programs)................... 11,12,13

III. PASS THROUGH GRANTS AND PROGRAMS

A. STP Exchange Projects........................................ 14

IV. FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES A. Status of Reserve Funds...................................... 15

V. SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULES

A. Staff Positions.............................................. 16 B. TDA Allocation Balances...................................... 17

VI. GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING TERMS..................... 18 - 21

I:\FISCAL\BUDGET\FY13-14BUDGET\MAY13\TABLECONTENTS0513.DOC

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPROJECTED REVENUE SUMMARY

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-1-

1 PROJECTED REVENUE SUMMARY2 FY12-13 FY13-143 SOURCES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 Transportation Development Act (TDA):6 Auditor's 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Estimate 7,216,348 8,165,852 949,504 - Auditor Controller's estimate of Jan 20137 Previous FY Surplus Revenues Budgeted 394,728 114,411 -280,317 - To help cover significant reduction in FHWA Pl funding by AMBAG8 Interest Estimate 8,000 8,000 09 Total TDA Apportioned 7,619,076 8,288,263 669,187

1011 State Transit Assistance (STA) 3,305,170 2,759,269 -545,901 - State Controller estimate of January 201312 Planning Grant Funds/Others:13 Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) 316,933 316,933 014 STIP for Planning (PPM) 163,537 163,537 0 -15 RSTP Exchange - Eco Act, CTSC, & Bike Signage 120,824 81,024 -39,800 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover16 FHWA - Earmark 220,000 180,000 -40,000 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover and funds to complete planning documents17 FHWA - Planning (PL) - from AMBAG 250,411 100,000 -150,411 - AMBAG significantly reduced funding for work done by RTC to meet Fed requiremen18 Coastal Conservancy 250,000 150,000 -100,000 - Estimated FY 2012-13 Carryover19 SCMTD 4,136 0 -4,136 - Completed in FY 2012-1320 New Freedom Grant 165,000 165,000 021 SGC Grant 42,584 13,927 -28,657 - Estimae for FY 2013-1422 Transit intern and planning grants 137,413 133,191 -4,222 - Estimated FY 2012-13 Carryover23 Other Revenues 9,750 0 -9,750 - One time revenues in FY 2012-1324 RTC Funds Budgeted 347,692 159,074 -188,618 - Estimate for FY 2013-1425 Planning/Other Total 2,028,280 1,462,686 -565,59426 Rideshare:27 RSTP Exchange & AMBAG funds 143,641 318,841 175,200 - Previously programmed funds28 CMAQ - Rideshare 164,300 0 -164,300 - To be fully spent in FY 2012-1329 AB2766 78,784 58,738 -20,046 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1330 Service Authority for Freeway Emergency (SAFE):31 DMV Fees and interest 239,000 239,000 032 Other - MTC SAFE and Partnership Planning Grant 140,800 107,000 -33,800 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1333 SAFE Funds Budgeted 83,350 112,300 28,950 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-13 and to complete 511 system planning34 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP):35 Caltrans Grant 206,370 205,000 -1,370 - Estimate of Caltrans funds for FY 2013-1436 Hwy 1 Constructin and RSTP Exchange 120,000 135,000 15,000 - Newly programmed funds to continue existing FSP service37 FSP Reserves Budgeted and Interest 70,630 32,000 -38,630 - Lower level of reserve funds needed in FY 2013-1438 Rail/Trail Authority:39 Proposition 116 and STIP 19,550,000 5,240,000 -14,310,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1340 Leases and Union Pacific 446,500 50,000 -396,500 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1341 Federal Earmark and RSTP Exchange 431,584 0 -431,584 - Used in FY 2012-13 for engineering work42 Transfer - in from TC Planning 110,000 110,000 043 Rail/Trail Funds Budgeted 114,860 135,000 20,140 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1344 Highway 1:45 RSTP Exchange 1,961,056 981,248 -979,808 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1346 STIP 1,537,236 317,729 -1,219,507 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1347 CMIA (state bond) 10,462,198 1,992,271 -8,469,927 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1348 RSTP Exchange Program 4,702,603 30,000 -4,672,603 - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1349 TOTAL 53,515,438 22,574,345 -30,941,093

I:\FISCAL\BUDGET\FY13-14Budget\May13\[Copy of FY2014May13-1.xlsx]Revenue Summary 4/22/2013 8:21

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONAPPORTIONMENT SUMMARY

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-2-

1 APPORTIONMENT SUMMARY2 FY12-13 FY13-143 CLAIMANTS APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 Transportation Development Act (TDA): (1)67 TDA Reserve Fund 22,253 46,162 23,909 - To meet established 8% targer for TDA reserve fund8 RTC Reserve Fund 250,000 -250,000 - This was from FY 2011-12 surplus funds9 RTC Planning 114,411 114,411 - To help cover significant reduction in FHWA Pl funding by AMBAG

10 SCCRTC: % Chg11 TDA Administration 475,657 527,288 51,631 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201312 TDA Planning: General Planning 280,186 310,600 30,414 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201313 Bike to Work 50,000 50,000 0 0.00%14 Bike & Pedestrian Safety (CTSC) 100,000 100,000 0 0.00%15 Subtotal 905,843 987,888 82,045 9.06%1617 SCMTD 5,507,038 6,104,531 597,493 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201318 Specialized Transit (Community Bridges/CTSA) 541,042 599,743 58,701 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201319 Volunteer Center 64,410 71,398 6,988 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201320 City of Capitola 12,327 13,664 1,337 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201321 City of Santa Cruz - Non Transit 76,515 84,817 8,302 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201322 City of Scotts Valley 14,377 15,937 1,560 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201323 City of Watsonville 63,740 70,656 6,916 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201324 County of Santa Cruz 161,531 179,057 17,526 10.85% - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 201325 Subtotal 6,440,980 7,139,802 698,822 10.85%2627 TOTAL TDA APPORTIONED 7,619,076 8,288,263 669,187 - Based on Auditor Controller estimate of Jan 20132829 State Transit Assistance (STA) - SCMTD 3,305,170 2,759,269 -545,901 - State Controller estimate of January 20133031 Planning Grant Funds/Others: 2,028,280 1,462,686 -565,594 - Some planning work products completed in FY 2012-133233 Rideshare 386,725 377,579 -9,146 - some Carpool Incentive Program work completed in FY 2012-133435 SAFE 463,150 458,300 -4,850 - Some 511 system planning work completed in FY 2012-133637 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 397,000 372,000 -25,000 - Extra service for Hwy 1 construction not needed in FY 2013-143839 Rail/Trail Authority 20,652,944 5,535,000 -15,117,944 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-134041 Highway 1 13,960,490 3,291,248 -10,669,242 - Majority of Highway 1 Aux Lanes work completed in FY 2012-134243 RSTP Exchange Program 4,702,603 30,000 -4,672,603 - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-134445 TOTAL 53,515,438 22,574,345 -30,941,0934647 (1) TDA apportionments are based on the formulas in the RTC's Rules and Regulations. Balance not used for Planning and Administration is allocated to other TDA claimants as follows:48 85.5% is appropriated to SCMTD, 8.4% to Community Bridges and 1% to the Volunteer Center; the remaining funds are proportionally allocated to cities and the County according to population.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONBUDGET SUMMARY

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-3-

1 BUDGET SUMMARY23 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL4 FY 11-12 SALARIES & SERVICES & FY12-13 SALARIES & SERVICES & FY13-14 SALARIES & SERVICES &5 ADOPTED BENEFITS SUPPLIES ADOPTED BENEFITS SUPPLIES PROPOSED BENEFITS SUPPLIES6 OPERATIONS PROGRAMS 06/12 2/07/13 5/02/13 (1)78 SCCRTC - Administration 648,350 201,000 447,350 718,250 201,000 517,250 624,500 208,000 416,500 9 Rideshare 416,991 180,000 236,991 386,725 180,000 206,725 366,679 180,000 186,679

10 SAFE 598,633 140,000 458,633 463,150 150,000 313,150 458,300 165,000 293,300 11 Freeway Service Patrol 362,000 45,000 317,000 397,000 60,000 337,000 372,000 70,000 302,000 12 SCCRTC Planning 2,821,434 996,654 1,824,780 2,215,873 1,009,679 1,206,194 1,940,485 1,057,861 882,624 1314 Total Operations Programs 4,847,408 1,562,654 3,284,754 4,180,998 1,600,679 2,580,319 3,761,964 1,680,861 2,081,103 1516 CAPITAL PROGRAMS1718 Rail/Trail Authority 21,007,359 100,000 20,907,359 20,652,944 110,000 20,542,944 5,535,000 180,000 5,355,000 19 Highway 1 Env Docs & Design 2,807,022 150,832 2,656,190 1,961,056 150,000 1,811,056 981,248 200,000 781,248 20 Highway 1 Construction 15,933,000 200,000 15,733,000 11,999,434 224,586 11,774,848 2,310,000 75,000 2,235,000 2122 Total Capital Programs 39,747,381 450,832 39,296,549 34,613,434 484,586 34,128,848 8,826,248 455,000 8,371,248 2324 TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS 44,594,789 2,013,486 42,581,303 38,794,432 2,085,265 36,709,167 12,588,212 2,135,861 10,452,351 2526272829 FY 11-12 FY12-13 FY13-1430 FY 11-12 FY 11-12 ACTUAL LESS FY12-13 FY 11-12 ADOPTED VS FY13-14 FY12-13 PROPOSED VS31 PROGRAM ADOPTED ACTUAL ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED FY 11-12 PROPOSED ADOPTED FY12-1332 06/12 6/30/11 06/12 2/07/13 06/12 ADOPTED 5/02/13 2/07/13 ADOPTED3334 SCCRTC - Administration 648,350 495,198 (153,152) 718,250 648,350 69,900 624,500 718,250 (93,750) 35 Rideshare 416,991 179,767 (237,224) 386,725 416,991 (30,266) 366,679 386,725 (20,046) 36 SAFE 598,633 397,579 (201,054) 463,150 598,633 (135,483) 458,300 463,150 (4,850) 37 Freeway Service Patrol 362,000 290,206 (71,794) 397,000 362,000 35,000 372,000 397,000 (25,000) 38 Rail/Trail Authority 21,007,359 469,161 (20,538,198) 20,652,944 21,007,359 (354,415) 5,535,000 20,652,944 (15,117,944) 39 Highway 1 Env Docs & Design 2,807,022 921,236 (1,885,786) 1,961,056 2,807,022 (845,966) 981,248 1,961,056 (979,808) 40 Highway 1 Construction 15,933,000 3,720,462 (12,212,538) 11,999,434 15,933,000 (3,933,566) 2,310,000 11,999,434 (9,689,434) 41 SCCRTC Planning 2,821,434 1,589,272 (1,232,162) 2,215,873 2,821,434 (605,561) 1,940,485 2,215,873 (275,388) 4243 Total Operating Budget 44,594,789 8,062,881 (36,531,908) 38,794,432 44,594,789 (5,800,357) 12,588,212 38,794,432 (26,206,220) 4445 Notes: (1) Includes staffing shown on page 16

FY13-14 PROPOSED DETAILFY11-12 ADOPTED DETAIL FY12-13 ADOPTED DETAIL

BUDGET COMPARISONPRIOR YEAR AND BUDGET YEAR

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONADMINSTRATION

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-4-

1 ADMINISTRATION2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #102 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 TDA Administration 475,657 527,288 51,631 - Based on Auditor Controller's estimate7 Other Revenues 9,750 0 -9,750 - FY 2012-13 donations for CTC Town Hall meeting and Right on Track event8 RTC Funds 232,843 97,212 -135,631 - Lower level of RTC funds estimated to be used in FY 2013-149 TOTAL REVENUES 718,250 624,500 -93,750

10 EXPENDITURES:11 Salaries & Benefits 201,000 208,000 7,000 - Procurement needed for fiscal audit consulting services1213 Services and Supplies:14 Rent, Utilities, Insurance15 Telephone 13,000 13,000 016 Liability Insurance 14,000 14,000 017 Video Conferencing Fees 3,000 3,000 018 Utilities 9,000 9,000 019 Office Rent 89,000 89,000 020 Travel/Training21 Vehicle Rentals and Service 1,000 1,000 022 RTC Vehicle 3,000 3,000 023 Transportation/Travel/Education 26,000 26,000 024 Fixed Assets25 Fixed Assets 40,000 15,000 -25,000 - One-time expense for phone system upgrade26 Office Expenses27 Office Expense 24,000 24,000 028 Duplicating 6,000 6,000 029 Postage 5,500 5,500 030 Membership 7,500 7,500 031 Sponsorship 1,000 1,000 032 Advertisement/Publication 6,000 6,000 033 Office Equipment Repair/Maintenance 6,500 6,500 034 Contingency/Special Expense 34,750 20,000 -14,750 - Lower amount of contingency funds available for FY 2013-1435 County Mainframe/Intranet 6,000 6,000 036 Computer Software 20,000 10,000 -10,000 - some upgrades completed in FY 2012-1337 Services38 Commissioners' Stipend 11,000 11,000 039 Fiscal & Triennial Performance Audit 65,000 30,000 -35,000 - Triennial performace audit should be completed in Fy 2012-1340 Annual Report/Fact Sheets 5,000 5,000 041 Accounting, Payroll and Auditing Fees 15,000 15,000 042 Human Resources/Employee Relations 20,000 10,000 -10,000 - No labor negotiations anticipated in FY 2013-1443 Administrative Consulting Services 12,500 12,500 044 Legal Counsel 30,000 30,000 045 Computer/website support, service & programming 36,000 30,000 -6,000 - FY 2012-13 included some needed upgrades46 Custodial - Janitorial Services 7,500 7,500 047 Subtotal Services & Supplies 517,250 416,500 -100,7504849 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 718,250 624,500 -93,750

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRIDESHARE - COMMUTE SOLUTIONS

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-5-

1 RIDESHARE: 721400

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #179 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 RSTP Exchange 138,841 318,841 180,000 - Previously programmed funds7 Rideshare Month (AMBAG) 4,800 0 -4,800 - Spent in FY 2012-138 CMAQ - Rideshare 164,300 0 -164,300 - To be fully spent in FY 2012-139 AB2766 78,784 58,738 -20,046 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-13

10 TOTAL REVENUES 386,725 377,579 -9,14611 EXPENDITURES:12 Salaries & Benefits 180,000 180,000 01314 Services and Supplies:15 Rideshare:16 Telephone 500 500 017 Membership 600 600 018 Postage 1,000 1,000 019 Other - Office Expense 2,000 2,000 020 Transportation/Travel/Education 2,500 2,500 021 Advertisement & Promotion Materials 20,000 20,000 022 Rideshare Database/Programming 7,500 7,500 023 Emergency ride home 3,738 3,738 024 Carpool Incentive Program 50,046 40,000 -10,046 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1325 Park & Ride Lot Project 118,841 108,841 -10,000 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1326 Subtotal Services & Supplies 206,725 186,679 -20,04627 Unappropriated Revenues: 0 10,900 10,9002829 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 386,725 377,579 -9,146

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE)

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-6-

1 SAFE: 721825

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #178 and #175 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 DMV Fees 235,000 235,000 07 Interest 4,000 4,000 08 Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant for 511 System 90,800 57,000 -33,800 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-139 Local Financial Assistance (MTC SAFE) 50,000 50,000 0

10 SAFE Reserve Funds Budgeted 83,350 112,300 28,950 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-13 and to complete 511 system planning11 TOTAL REVENUES 463,150 458,300 -4,85012 EXPENDITURES:13 Salaries & Benefits 150,000 165,000 15,000 - Procurement for call box upgrades1415 Services and Supplies:16 Office Expense 2,000 2,000 017 Transportation/Travel/Education 2,000 2,000 018 HWY 17 Utility Charges (Electricity) 1,200 1,200 019 Liability Insurance 4,000 4,000 020 Legal Counsel 1,000 1,000 021 Contingency/Special Expense 2,500 2,500 022 Network Access 11,000 11,000 023 System Maintenance 62,000 62,000 024 CHP Operations 600 600 025 Safe on 17 120,000 120,000 026 Freeway Service Patrol 0 0 027 Call Answering 4,500 4,500 028 Callbox Upgrade 50,500 50,500 029 511 System Plan - Consultant Services 16,865 12,000 -4,865 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1330 TAMC for 511 System Planning 34,985 20,000 -14,985 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1331 Subtotal Services & Supplies 313,150 293,300 -19,85032 Unappropriated Revenues 0 0 03334 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 463,150 458,300 -4,850

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONFREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (FSP)

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-7-

1 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (FSP) : 721827

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #177 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES6 Caltrans 206,370 205,000 -1,370 - Estimate of Caltrans funds for FY 2013-147 Hwy 1 Aux Lanes project TMP funds 120,000 -120,000 - Hwy 1 Aux Lanes project to be completed in FY 2012-13

RSTP Exchange 135,000 135,000 - Newly programmed funds to continue existing FSP service8 Interest 630 1,000 370 - Estimated interest revenue9 FSP Reserve Funds Budgeted 70,000 31,000 -39,000 - Lower level of reserve funds needed in FY 2013-14

10 TOTAL REVENUES 397,000 372,000 -25,0001112 EXPENDITURES13 Salaries & Benefits 60,000 70,000 10,000 - Procurement process to carry into FY 2013-141415 Services and Supplies:16 Telephone 2,000 2,000 017 Transportation/Travel/Education 1,000 1,000 018 Liability Insurance 4,000 4,000 019 Legal Counsel 1,000 1,000 020 Contingency/Special Expense 5,000 5,000 021 Supplies 4,000 4,000 022 Towing 320,000 285,000 -35,000 - Extra service for Hwy 1 construction not needed in FY 2013-1423 Subtotal Services & Supplies 337,000 302,000 -35,00024 Unappropriated Revenues: 0 0 025 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 397,000 372,000 -35,000

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRAIL/TRAIL AUTHORITY

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-8-

1 RAIL/TRAIL AUTHORITY: 722100

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #682 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 STIP 9,350,000 5,240,000 -4,110,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-137 Proposition 116 10,200,000 0 -10,200,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-138 Leases & Other Revenue 46,500 50,000 3,500 - Full fiscal year estimate based on existing lease agreements9 Federal Earmark 29,805 0 -29,805 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-13

10 Transfer from TC Funds 110,000 110,000 011 RSTP Exchange 401,779 0 -401,779 - Used in FY 2012-13 for engineering work12 Union Pacific 400,000 0 -400,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1313 Rail/Trail Authority Reserve Funds Budgeted 114,860 135,000 20,140 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1314 TOTAL REVENUES 20,652,944 5,535,000 -15,117,94415 EXPENDITURES:16 Salaries & Benefits 110,000 180,000 70,000 - For construction project support1718 Services and Supplies:19 Liability Insurance 30,000 30,000 020 Consulting Services:21 Negotiation Attorney 39,805 0 -39,805 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1322 STB Filing and Legal Counsel 8,860 0 -8,860 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1323 Closing Costs 12,000 0 -12,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1324 Freight Service Consultant 11,022 0 -11,022 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1325 Consultants for Rail Operations & Property Management 32,000 30,000 -2,000 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1326 Haz Mat Investigation and Related Costs 10,000 10,000 027 Title Insurance 8,500 0 -8,500 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1328 Hazardous Materials and Pollution Insurance 200,000 0 -200,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1329 Site Management Plan 30,000 30,000 030 General Contingency 33,978 30,000 -3,978 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1331 Engineering for improvements 521,779 0 -521,779 - Work completed in FY 2012-1332 Construction Management Consultant 30,000 380,000 350,000 - For construction project management consultant services33 Construction Legal Counsel 25,000 25,000 034 Various Rail Line Improvements 5,350,000 4,820,000 -530,000 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1335 Right of Way Acquisition 14,200,000 0 -14,200,000 - Rail line purchase completed in FY 2012-1336 Subtotal Services & Supplies 20,542,944 5,355,000 -15,187,9443738 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 20,652,944 5,535,000 -15,117,944

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONHIGHWAY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND DESIGN

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-9-

1 HWY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT & Design: 722200

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #683 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 01/12/12 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 RSTP Exchange - HOV Lanes 1,761,231 796,248 -964,983 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-137 CMAQ - HOV Lanes 0 0 08 STIP - HOV Lanes 0 0 09 Federal Earmark Aux Lanes: Design 0 0 0

10 STIP - Aux Lanes: Design (carryover) 0 0 011 RSTP Exchange - Aux Lanes: Design 14,825 0 -14,825 - Recommend programming to HOV Lanes project12 RSTP Exchange - Aux Lanes: PA/ED 185,000 185,000 013 TOTAL REVENUES 1,961,056 981,248 -979,80814 EXPENDITURES:15 Salaries and Benefits 150,000 200,000 50,000 - Draft environmetal docs to be released, public outreach, comments, etc.1617 Services and Supplies:18 Hwy 1 HOV Lanes PA/ED: 19 PA/ED Consultant - Nolte Contract 825,208 400,000 -425,208 - From reserve line for this fiscal year's costs20 PA/ED on Call Consultants 3,500 3,500 021 PA/ED Public Information, materials, postage & meetings 33,786 30,000 -3,786 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1322 ROW Consultant 2,314 1,500 -814 - Estimated carryover from FY 2012-1323 FHWA Project Value Analysis 0 0 024 Sustainability Analysis (STARS) 0 0 025 Reserve for future year expenses 746,423 161,248 -585,175 - To other lines for expenses in this fiscal year26 Highway 1 Morrissey-Soquel Aux Lane PA/ED27 PA/ED Legal Costs 185,000 185,000 028 Hwy 1 Morrisssey-Soquel Aux Lane Design:29 Final Design and Engineering Consultants 0 0 030 Design on Call Consultants 0 0 031 Design Public Information, materials, Postage & meeting space 0 0 032 PS&E Construction Admin Activities 0 0 033 Pre-construction activities 0 0 034 Subtotal Services & Supplies 1,796,231 781,248 -1,014,9833536 Unappropriated Revenues - HOV: 14,825 0 -14,82537 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,961,056 981,248 -979,808

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONHIGHWAY 1 CONSTRUCTION

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-10-

1 HWY 1 CONSTRUCTION: 722200

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #683 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 STIP Construction 1,537,236 317,729 -1,219,507 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-137 CMIA Construction 10,462,198 1,992,271 -8,469,927 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-138 TOTAL REVENUES 11,999,434 2,310,000 -9,689,4349 EXPENDITURES:

10 Salaries and Benefits 224,586 75,000 -149,586 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-131112 Services and Supplies:13 Hwy 1 Morrissey-Soquel Aux Lane Construction:14 Construction contract 8,167,374 1,500,000 -6,667,374 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1315 Supplemental construction activity 832,000 250,000 -582,000 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1316 Traffic management 445,000 100,000 -345,000 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1317 Traffic enforcement 145,468 35,000 -110,468 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1318 Miscellaneous other 255,325 50,000 -205,325 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1319 Construction management consultant 1,471,224 200,000 -1,271,224 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1320 Construction design support 163,717 25,000 -138,717 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1321 On Call Consultants 97,326 25,000 -72,326 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1322 Contingency & Future Year Costs 197,414 50,000 -147,414 - Majority of work completed in FY 2012-1323 Subtotal Services & Supplies 11,774,848 2,235,000 -9,539,8482425 Unappropriated Revenues 0 0 026 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 11,999,434 2,310,000 -9,689,434

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING REVENUES SUMMARY

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-11-

1 PLANNING REVENUES: 721600/721700/721750

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 SOURCES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:67 TDA Planning 430,186 575,011 144,825 - From Apportionment Summary page & to help make up for AMBAG funding reduction8 Rural Planning Assistance (RPA) 316,933 316,933 09 STIP for Planning (PPM) 163,537 163,537 0

10 RSTP Exchange - Eco Act, CTSC, & Bike Signage 120,824 81,024 -39,800 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover11 FHWA - Earmark 220,000 180,000 -40,000 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover and funds to complete planning documents12 FHWA - Planning (PL) - from AMBAG 250,411 100,000 -150,411 - AMBAG significantly reduced funding for work done by RTC to meet Fed requirements13 New Freedom Grant 165,000 165,000 014 Transit Professional Development Grant 13,568 0 -13,568 - Completed in FY 2012-1315 Federal transit planning grant 1,649 0 -1,649 - Completed in FY 2012-1316 Partnership Planning Grant 122,196 133,191 10,995 - Estimated FY 2012-13 Carryover17 SCMTD 4,136 -4,136 - Completed in FY 2012-1318 Coastal Conservancy 250,000 150,000 -100,000 - Estimated FY 2012-13 Carryover19 SGC Grants (AMBAG & SC County) 42,584 13,927 -28,657 - Estimae for FY 2013-1420 AB2766/Air District Funds: 21 Bike Secure - RTC 0 0 022 RTC Funds Budgeted 114,849 61,862 -52,987 - Estimate for FY 2013-142324 TOTAL REVENUES 2,215,873 1,940,485 -275,388

Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING EXPENDITURES

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-12-

1 PLANNING EXPENDITURES: 721600/721700/721750

2 FY12-13 FY13-143 EXPENDITURES APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/1356 Staff & Overhead by Program7 Plan Coordination 95,471 103,648 8,177 - Estimate for FY 2013-148 Unified Corridor Study 23,489 116,607 93,118 - Most work planned for FY 2013-14 and FY 2012-13 work shifted to this FY9 Complete streets plan 47,584 34,095 -13,489 - Most work to be done in FY 2013-14

10 SC County sustainable comm and transit corridor plan 5,000 - -5,000 - Anticipate completion in FY 2012-1311 Work Program 30,000 30,000 012 Public Information - 15,000 15,000 - General public information not attributable to specifc projects13 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 47,929 50,429 2,500 - Estimate for FY 2013-1414 Bike Secure 7,500 - -7,500 - Completed in FY 2012-1315 Bike Signage Plan 20,000 20,000 016 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network 140,000 100,000 -40,000 - Anticipate completion in in middle of FY 2013-1417 Specialized Transportation 48,459 50,959 2,500 - Estimate for FY 2013-1418 Safe Paths to Transit 5,500 6,500 1,000 - Carryover from FY 2012-1319 Regional Transportation Plan for MTP 233,450 233,450 020 Regional Travel Demand Model 65,000 35,000 -30,000 - Most work to be done in FY 2013-1421 On-board transit study 1,748 - -1,748 - Completed in FY 2012-1322 Transit Planning Intern grant 15,629 - -15,629 - Completed in FY 2012-1323 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 157,618 188,173 30,555 - STIP/RTIP programming and production in FY 2013-1424 Highway & Roadway Planning 65,302 74,000 8,698 - Estimate for FY 2013-1425 Subtotal Staff and Overhead 1,009,679 1,057,861 48,18226 Services & Supplies27 Passthrough Programs28 Bike To Work Program (Ecology Action) 50,000 50,000 029 Bike & Ped Safety (Community Traffic Safety Coalition) 100,000 100,000 030 Safe Paths to Transit 160,000 160,000 031 Bike Signage Program 61,024 61,024 03233 Professional Services (contracts)34 Sacramento Assistant 36,000 - -36,000 - To help cover significant reduction in FHWA Pl funding by AMBAG35 Washington Assistant 44,600 44,600 036 Engineering and Other Technical Consultants 70,000 50,000 -20,000 - Lower level of need anticipated37 STARS for Regional Transportation Plan 51,800 - -51,800 - Anticipate completion in FY 2012-1338 On-board transit study 6,260 - -6,260 - Completed in FY 2012-1339 SC Metro for on-board transit study 1,105 - -1,105 - Completed in FY 2012-1340 MBSST Network Master Plan Consultant 310,000 210,000 -100,000 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover41 Unified Corridor Investment Plan Consultant 103,405 50,000 -53,405 - Estimated FY 2012-13 carryover

42 RTC Work Element Related Items43 Bike Secure Program - - 044 Traffic Monitoring services 70,000 15,000 -55,000 - One time data gathering efforts completed in FY 2012-1345 Printing RTP, RTIP, other Documents and Pub Info Materials 12,000 12,000 046 MBSST Network Plan Outreach 20,000 20,000 047 Transfer to Rail/Trail Authority 110,000 110,000 048 Subtotal Services & Supplies 1,206,194 882,624 -323,5704950 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,215,873 1,940,485 -275,388

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONPLANNING FUNDS SOURCE DETAIL

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-13-

1 PLANNING DETAIL: 721600/721700/721750

2 FY13-14 RTC FHWA SGC SGC STIP FHWA Fed 5304 New3 EXPENDITURES PROPOSED TDA FUND RPA PL - Grant Grant PPM Earmark Part Freedom Coastal RSTPX4 5/02/13 AMBAG (AMBAG) County Plang Grant Conserv5 SALARIES, Benefits & Overhead 6 Plan Coordination 103,648 9,422 - 84,226 10,000 7 Unified Corridor Study 116,607 23,416 10,000 - - 83,191 8 Complete streets plan 34,095 14,677 5,491 13,927 9 SC County sustainable comm and transit corridor plan - - - -

10 Work Program 30,000 3,118 - 6,882 20,000 11 Public Information 15,000 15,000 - - - 12 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning 50,429 5,429 - 20,000 - 25,000 13 Bike Secure - - - 14 Bike Signage Plan 20,000 - - 20,000 15 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network 100,000 - - 100,000 16 Specialized Transportation 50,959 6,375 - 44,584 17 Safe Paths to Transit 6,500 1,500 - 5,000 18 Regional Transportation Plan for MTP 233,450 80,396 - 80,021 50,000 23,033 19 Regional Travel Demand Model 35,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 20 On-board transit study - - - 21 Transit Planning Intern grant - - - 22 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 188,173 50,736 10,000 16,933 10,000 100,504 23 Highway & Roadway Planning 74,000 19,713 - 54,287 24 Salaries, Benefits & Overhead Subtotal 1,057,861 239,782 30,491 316,933 100,000 13,927 - 148,537 100,000 83,191 5,000 - 20,000 2526 Services & Supplies27 Passthrough Programs28 Bike To Work Program (Ecology Action) 50,000 50,000 - 29 Bike & Ped Safety (Community Traffic Safety Coalition) 100,000 100,000 - 30 Safe Paths to Transit 160,000 - 160,000 31 Bike Signage Program 61,024 - 61,024 3233 Professional Services34 Sacramento Assistant - - - 35 Washington Assistant 44,600 44,600 - 36 Engineering and Other Technical Consultants 50,000 30,000 20,000 37 STARS for Regional Transportation Plan - - - - 38 On-board transit study - - - - 39 SC Metro for on-board transit study - - 40 MBSST Network Master Plan Consultant 210,000 - 60,000 150,000 41 Unified Corridor Investment Plan Consultant 50,000 - 50,000 4243 RTC Work Element Related Items44 Bike Secure Program - - 45 Traffic Monitoring services 15,000 - 15,000 46 Printing RTP, RTIP, other Documents and Pub Info Materials 12,000 12,000 - - 47 MBSST Network Plan Outreach 20,000 - - 20,000 48 Transfer to Rail/Trail Authority 110,000 98,629 11,371 49 Subtotal Services & Supplies 882,624 335,229 31,371 - - - - 15,000 80,000 50,000 160,000 150,000 61,024 5051 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,940,485 575,011 61,862 316,933 100,000 13,927 - 163,537 180,000 133,191 165,000 150,000 81,024

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSTP EXCHANGE PROGRAM

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-14-

1 RSTP EXCHANGE PROGRAM: 7220002 FY12-13 FY13-143 WORK ELEMENT #101 APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 2/07/13 5/02/135 REVENUES:6 State RSTP Exchange Funds 3,176,787 (3,176,787) - Stimate from State not yet available7 Interest 30,000 30,000 - - Estimate8 RSTP Exchange Funds Budgeted - Carryover 4,672,603 (4,672,603) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-139 TOTAL REVENUES 7,879,390 30,000 (7,849,390)

1011 EXPENDITURES:12 City of Capitola13 Clares Street Traffic Calming 100,000 - (100,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1314 38th Avenue Rehabilitation 438,000 - (438,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1315 City of Capitola Subtotal 538,000 - (538,000) 1617 City of Santa Cruz18 Broadway-Brommer Bike/Ped Path 62,000 - (62,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1319 Laurel St Pavement Rehab - Front St to Mission St 675,000 - (675,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1320 Branciforte Bike and Pedestrian Bridge 300,000 - (300,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1321 City of Santa Cruz Subtotal 1,037,000 - (62,000) 2223 City of Scotts Valley24 Scotts Valley Dr Slurry Seal and Restriping 225,000 - (225,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1325 City of Scotts Valley Subtotal 225,000 - (225,000) 2627 City of Watsonville28 Freedom Blvd Reconstruction (Broadis to Alta Vista Ave) 900,000 - (900,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1329 City of Watsonville Subtotal 900,000 (900,000) 3031 County of Santa Cruz32 Corralitos Road Left Turn 278,000 - (278,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1333 State Park Drive Improvement 587,000 - (587,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1334 Calabasas Road Bike/Pedestrian 250,000 - (250,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1335 Soquel-San Jose Road Overlay 760,000 - (760,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1336 Soquel Dr. Overlay (Borregas Dr - State Park Drive) 700,000 - (700,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1337 Graham Hill Road Safety Project 16,714 - (16,714) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1338 Aptos Village Plan Improvements 690,000 - (690,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1339 Davenport Road Repairs 44,889 - (44,889) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1340 County of Santa Cruz Subtotal 3,326,603 - (3,326,603) 4142 SCCRTC43 Park and Ride Lot Program 130,000 - (130,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1344 Bike Route Signage 100,000 - (100,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1345 Highway 1 Soquel-Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes 386,000 - (386,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1346 Highway 1 HOV Lanes PA/ED 370,000 - (370,000) - Carryover to be determined at end of FY 2012-1347 Freeway Service Patrol 135,000 - (135,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1348 Commute Solutions Rideshare 200,000 - (200,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1349 Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line Acquisition and Improvement 450,000 - (450,000) - Assume project completion in FY 2012-1350 SCCRTC Subtotal 1,771,000 - (1,771,000) 5152 Unappropriated Revenues: 81,787 30,000 (51,787) - Estimate53 Unprogrammed Funds 54 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,879,390 30,000 (7,361,890) 5556 Note:

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONFUND BALANCES AND RESERVES

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-15-

12 FUND BALANCES & RESERVES: 5/02/133 TDA RTC RIDESHARE RAIL/TRAIL HWY 1 HWY 1 SAFE RSTP STA TOTAL4 DESCRIPTION FUND FUND FUND AUTHORITY PA/ED & ENG CONSTR OPERATING FSP EXCHANGE FUND ALL5 (1) (2) (3) FUND (4) FUND (4) FUND (4) FUND (5) FUND (5) FUND (4) (6) FUNDS67 Fund Balance 7-01-13 607,746 610,889 135,000 1,413,176 3,641 527,452 136,172 - 500 3,434,576 8 FY 2012-13 Surplus revenues budgeted - - 9 Revenues Budgeted to Reserves Fund 46,162

10 Restricted Reserve carried over (607,746) (286,987) (191,433)11 Budgeted Carryover from FY 2012-13 - (159,074) (135,000) (1,413,176) (112,300) (31,000) - - (1,850,550) 12 Subtotal Fund Balance 46,162 164,828 - - - 3,641 223,719 105,172 - 500 544,022 13 To Cashflow Reserve (164,828) (66,424) (231,252) 14 To Restricted Reserve Fund (46,162) 0 0 (46,162) 15 Unappropriated Revenues 10,900 - - - - - 30000 40,900 16 Total Fund Balance 0 0 10,900 0 0 3,641 157,295 105,172 30,000 500 307,5081718 25,606 19 Reserve Funds20 Reserve Fund Target 663,061 768,192 - - - - 249,090 1,680,3432122 Cashflow Reserve (8%) 164,828 66,424 231,25223 Restricted Reserve Fund (8% TDA; 22% others) 653,908 286,987 - - - - 191,433 - - - 1,132,32824 Total Reserve Funds 653,908 451,815 257,857 1,363,5802526 Reserve Fund Shortfall from Target (9,153) (316,377) - - - - 8,767 - - - (316,763)272829 Notes:30 - Numbers in parentheses are negative numbers. All other numbers are positive numbers.31 - Funds within each category (column) are restricted for use on projects/programs within that category. 32 - Fund Balance (7-01-13) = Balances of funds not used at the end of prior fiscal year. 33 - Budgeted Carryover = Portion of Fund Balance used in current fiscal year budget.34 - Unappropriated Revenues = Amount of revenues designated for specific projects/programs that likely will not be expended in FY12/13, but will be needed in future years.3536 (1) 8% reserve established in RTC Rules and Regulations for the TDA Fund37 (2) 3.6 month (or 30%) operating reserve target proposed for the RTC Fund ; 2.1 months (or 17.5%) available in this proposed budget38 (3) Reserve for the Rideshare fund is included with the RTC Fund39 (4) Reserve funds not proposed for capital project funds40 (5) 3.6 month (or 30%) operating reserve target proposed for the SAFE Fund to cover both SAFE and FSP operations41 (6) This is a pass-through fund, all receipts are paid to Santa Cruz Metro.424344

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONSTAFF POSITIONS

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-16-

12 FY12-13 FY13-143 AUTHORIZED APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE4 STAFF POSITIONS: 2/07/13 5/02/1356 POSITIONS FTE FTE FTE78 Executive Director 1.00 1.00 0.009 Deputy Director 1.00 1.00 0.00

10 Fiscal Officer SCCRTC 1.00 1.00 0.0011 Administrative Services Officer 1.00 1.00 0.0012 Transportation Planner I-IV 8.00 8.00 0.0013 Accounting Technician 0.50 0.50 0.0014 Administrative Assistant I-III 1.75 1.75 0.0015 Transportation Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 0.0016 Paid Intern 0.50 0.50 0.001718 TOTAL POSITIONS 16.75 16.75 0.0019202122 FY12-13 FY13-1423 BUDGETED APPROVED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE NOTE24 STAFF POSITIONS: 2/07/13 5/02/132526 POSITIONS FTE FTE FTE2728 Executive Director 1.00 1.00 0.0029 Deputy Director 1.00 1.00 0.0030 Fiscal Officer SCCRTC 1.00 1.00 0.0031 Administrative Services Officer 1.00 1.00 0.0032 Transportation Planner I-IV 7.25 7.25 0.0033 Accounting Technician 0.50 0.50 0.0034 Administrative Assistant I-III 1.75 1.75 0.0035 Transportation Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 0.0036 Paid Intern 0.50 0.00 -0.50 - Grant for position spent in FY 2012-133738 TOTAL POSITIONS 16.00 15.50 (0.50)

Note: FTE= full-time equivalent

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONTDA ALLOCATION BALANCES

FY 2013-2014 BUDGET

-17-

12 TDA ALLOCATION BALANCES3 FY13-14 UNSPENT AVAILABLE4 CLAIMANTS PROPOSED PRIOR FUNDS5 5/02/13 ALLOCATIONS ADJUSTMENT 5/02/136 SCCRTC7 TDA Administration 527,288 527,288 8 TDA Planning 460,600 460,600 9 Subtotal 987,888 - 987,888

101415 SCMTD 6,104,531 6,104,531 1617 Specialized Transit 599,743 599,743 18 - 19 Volunteer Center 71,398 71,398 2021 City of Capitola 13,664 - 13,664 2223 City of Santa Cruz - Non Transit 84,817 - 84,817 2425 City of Scotts Valley 15,937 - 15,937 2627 City of Watsonville 70,656 - 70,656 2829 County of Santa Cruz 179,057 - 179,057 3031 TOTAL 8,127,690 - - 8,127,690

Note: Allocations for the Cities and the County use the most recent population figures from the Department of Finance

18

Glossary of Transportation Funding Terms Used in the SCCRTC Budget AB2766: This bill authorized a Department of Motor Vehicles vehicle registration fee of up to $4.00 to be used by air pollution

control districts for planning and incentive programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) annually conducts a grant program to distribute approximately $1.5 million in AB2766 funds in Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties for this purpose. The SCCRTC has received AB2766 funds for some of its own programs, in addition to serving as a pass-through agency for grants used by some local non-profit organizations.

AB3090 Loan: Loan secured with an AB3090 designation from the CTC to be paid with funds eventually available to a project from

the STIP. ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2009 as an economic

stimulus package with funds for transportation projects CMAQ: see Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CMIA: Corridor Mobility Improvement Account – a $4.5 billion program for highway improvements authorized by

Proposition 1B, a transportation bond measure approved by California voters in November 2006. Coastal Conservancy Funds: State bond funds available for Coastal Conservancy projects through state ballot measures. Commission Reserves: The SCCRTC maintains a Reserve Fund for its operations. Commission Reserve funds are budgeted as

necessary to fully fund the operating budget or for special projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: A federal funding program specifically for projects and programs

which contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard. The SCCRTC programs CMAQ funds for Santa Cruz County. CMAQ funds for planning projects appear in the SCCRTC budget.

c/o Carryover. Funds carried over from prior fiscal years. DMV Fees: Department of Motor Vehicles revenue, used by the SCCRTC for the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies

19

(SAFE), see Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies funds for more detail. Federal Earmark: Funds for specific projects secured by members of congress through federal legislation. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Planning (PL) Funds from AMBAG: These funds are derived from one percent "off

the top" of the funds available to each State for federal highway projects. PL funds are to be used for metropolitan planning. Funds are available for use by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and are allocated by a formula established by Caltrans in consultation with the MPOs. Caltrans is responsible as the "pass through" agency for administering PL funds. AMBAG passes through a portion of its FHWA PL funds to the SCCRTC for regional transportation planning purposes.

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Grants: Caltrans annually grants funds to the SCCRTC to operate FSP services - a roving tow truck

service which helps clear incidents on Highway 17 during peak travel periods. The SCCRTC has a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission to contract for the FSP service for Santa Cruz County.

FSP: Freeway Service Patrol FSP Funds: Funds designated in the annual state budget for FSP programs and distributed by a formula established in the FSP

statutes. Proposition 116: Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 passed by the voters in November 1990, provided bond

funds for passenger rail and other projects including $11 million for Santa Cruz County. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP): A federal funding program established by ISTEA to fund mass transit,

highway, bicycle, pedestrian and local streets and roads projects. The SCCRTC programs STP funds for Santa Cruz County. Sometimes called RSTP for Regional Surface Transportation Program.

Regional Surface Transpor tation Program Exchange (RSTPX): The annual Federal Apportionment Exchange Program,

administered by Caltrans, allows the SCCRTC the option to exchange all or a portion of its annual apportionment of Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds for non-federal (State) funds. State funds have fewer

20

oversight requirements than Federal funds. The funds pass through the SCCRTC to the local jurisdictions and other eligible public agencies, and therefore appear in the SCCRTC budget.

Rideshare Funds: Funds specifically designated for the Rideshare program, oftentimes through the Regional Transportation

Improvement Program (RTIP). RPA: Rural Planning Assistance RSTP: Regional Surface Transportation Program RSTPX: Regional Surface Transportation Program Exchange Rural Planning Assistance (RPA): These state funds are allocated annually to regional transportation planning agencies in rural

areas to support planning programs. SAFE: Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Service Author ity for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) Funds: Under the provisions of state enabling legislation, the Santa Cruz

County SAFE collects a $1-per-year addition to the vehicle registration fee (listed as DMV Fees in the budget) to fund the capital, planning, maintenance, and operation of a call box system on Highways 1, 9, 17, 129, and 152 in Santa Cruz County. SAFE funds can also be used for changeable message signs (CMS), freeway service patrol (FSP) and other selected motorist aid systems.

SGC: Strategic Growth Council established in 2008 by SB732 and responsible for allocating grant funds used to implement

AB32 and SB375 STA: State Transit Assistance State Planning and Research Funds: These funds are awarded by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) annually

on a discretionary basis. State Transit Assistance (STA): State Transit Assistance funds are derived from statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel as

21

part of the Transportation Planning and Development (TP&D) program. Transit operations and capital improvement projects are eligible uses of STA funds. The SCCRTC receives State Transit Assistance funds and allocates 100 percent annually to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD).

State Transpor tation Improvement Program (STIP): A portion of State Transportation Improvement Program funds are allocated

to our region for programming by the SCCRTC. STIP regional share funds programmed for SCCRTC projects, such as the Freeway Service Patrol, the Rideshare Program and Planning activities, appear in the SCCRTC budget.

STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program STP: Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) STP Exchange: Regional Surface Transportation Program Exchange (RSTPX) TDA: Transportation Development Act Transportation Development Act (TDA): State law enacted in 1971. Local TDA funds are generated from a State tax of one-

quarter of one percent on all retail sales in the county. Revenues are allocated annually by the SCCRTC to support transportation planning and administration, bus transit, transportation for the elderly and handicapped, and bikeway and pedestrian projects.

Transpor tation Development Act (TDA) Reserves: This reserve fund is maintained in order to provide the full TDA allocations to

TDA recipients in the event there is a shortfall in actual versus projected TDA revenues. Occasionally some TDA Reserve funds are allocated to a special project.

I:\FISCAL\BUDGET\FY13-14Budget\May13\GLOSSARY0513.doc revised 03/11

FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 12-13 FY 1-13 FY 12-13 FY 12-13 FY 13-14

Auditor Difference Difference Cumulative AuditorActual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Controller Actual of Actual to as % of % of Actual Controller

Month Revenue Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Estimate Revenue Estimate Estimate to Estimate Estimate

JUL 516,100 543,200 570,200 454,800 410,500 499,800 499,800 533,900 34,100 6.82% 106.82% 560,595

AUG 688,100 724,300 760,200 539,000 547,300 666,400 666,400 711,800 45,400 6.81% 106.82% 747,390

SEP 795,777 863,255 634,334 719,093 819,955 699,895 699,895 718,257 18,361 2.62% 105.24% 754,170

OCT 522,100 599,500 567,100 490,500 458,300 486,400 486,400 556,500 70,100 14.41% 107.14% 584,325

NOV 1,062,100 799,300 756,100 555,900 611,000 648,500 648,500 742,000 93,500 14.42% 108.71% 779,100

DEC 644,010 638,280 700,859 625,785 776,432 804,308 804,308 733,930 -70,378 -8.75% 105.02% 770,626

JAN 584,700 583,600 538,600 465,300 502,700 510,100 488,844 534,300 45,456 9.30% 105.51% 561,015

FEB 777,600 778,200 590,700 620,400 670,300 680,100 651,792 712,400 60,608 9.30% 106.01% 749,739

MAR 583,478 543,629 578,624 607,400 510,760 625,667 638,135 632,278 -5,858 -0.92% 105.22% 689,732

APR 488,600 494,300 432,400 385,100 412,600 441,300 404,586 475,600 71,014 17.55% 106.05% 486,487

MAY 651,500 659,000 464,400 562,700 605,300 588,400 591,173 648,649

JUN 734,297 652,069 606,615 605,859 631,912 756557 636,515 834,025

TOTAL 8,048,362 7,878,633 7,200,133 6,631,837 6,957,059 7,407,427 7,216,348 6,350,964 362,303 5.02% 88.01% 8,165,852

% Change -2.11% -8.61% -7.89% 4.90% 6.47%

I:\FISCAL\TDA\MonthlyReceipts\Luis-Budget\[FYsEstmts&Revs0413.xls]Sheet1

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Estimates and Revenues

ATTA

CH

MEN

T 2

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Rachel Moriconi, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC):

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) in support of statewide efforts to assess the needs of local street and road maintenance and to support increased funding to improve the conditions of local streets and roads.

BACKGROUND The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) is well aware that there are insufficient funds available to operate and maintain the local street and road system, especially as state and federal sources have become increasingly unreliable. Existing transportation revenues make up less than 50% percent of what is required to maintain and improve roads, highways, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and public transit. A comprehensive statewide study of California's local street and road system was recently released and demonstrates that local road maintenance needs and transportation funding shortfalls are not unique to Santa Cruz County. The study was sponsored by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (including RTC), the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and other transportation stakeholders. DISCUSSION The 2012 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment shows that pavement conditions across the state are in rapid decline, with Santa Cruz County roads ranked among the most severely deteriorated in the state. The report is available online at www.savecaliforniastreets.org. A Fact Sheet on the report is attached (Attachment 2). The analysis confirms that existing funding levels are not sufficient to address deteriorating roads, bridges, sidewalks, storm drains and traffic signs, and predicts that the cost to fix them will double if repair and maintenance are delayed due to a lack of new funding. Fifty-one out of California’s 58 counties were found to have an average pavement condition that is considered either “at risk” or “poor” on the pavement condition index, posing safety hazards for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. This represents a steady downward trend since the initial 2008 analysis, and the report projects that unless additional funding is established, a quarter of streets and roads in California will be in “failed” condition in just ten years.

Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Page 2

On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 66, placing it in the “at risk category”. The average condition of the 855 miles of local roads in Santa Cruz County is 48 (poor). Countywide (including cities) $573 million is needed over the next 10 years for pavement, $57 million for bridge maintenance, and an additional $141 million is needed to maintain essential safety and traffic components such as curb ramps, sidewalks, bicycle facilities storm drains, streetlights and signals. Public Works departments are challenged with the fact that over time it costs significantly more to reconstruct severely deteriorated roadways, the ones that get the most attention from the public, than it does to maintain roadways in good condition, but most state and federal funds cannot be used for ongoing maintenance and local revenues are insufficient. Addressing the Backlog Addressing the funding shortfall will require changes on multiple levels. State and federal gas tax revenues continue to decline, especially as vehicles become more fuel efficient. In addition, the amount of revenues generated from gasoline taxes have not kept pace with the number of vehicle miles driven. Therefore, it is necessary for state and federal governments to increase the per gallon excise tax on gasoline and/or implement alternate funding mechanisms, such as fees based on the number of miles driven, toll roads, and other user fees. The California Transportation Commission initiated a process to evaluate revenue options for addressing part of statewide transportation funding needs, a process which the Governor has charged the newly forming state Transportation Agency to continue. At the federal level, there is recognition that the existing gas tax is insufficient however, finding agreement on how to fill the funding gap continues to be a significant challenge for Congress. Due to the chronic lack of action by the state and federal governments to address the funding shortfall, local communities have taken steps to increase local revenues, which cannot be taken by the state. Last year, the RTC evaluated the possibility of a November 2012 ballot measure which could garner sufficient votes to raise additional revenues for the local transportation system. The poll demonstrated that Santa Cruz County voters recognize that new revenue sources are needed to support the local transportation system; however, poll results showed that support for a new local $10 per vehicle registration fee (VRF), which would net approximately $2.2 million per year for local road repairs, fell just short of the 2/3rds supermajority vote threshold. The RTC is working with others in the state to lower the voter threshold for new revenue measures to 55%. Additionally, in its most recent grant cycle, the RTC programmed over $3 million (nearly two-thirds of available Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds) to local road repair and rehabilitation projects. Local agencies continue to look for longer term options that will meet more of the community’s transportation needs with dependable funding sources. These may include a new sales tax, vehicle registration fee, or other revenue.

Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Page 3

Staff recommends that the RTC adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) in support of statewide efforts to assess the needs of local street and road maintenance and to support increased funding to improve the conditions of local streets and roads. SUMMARY The Regional Transportation Commission has been involved in development of the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. The most recent report shows that the average condition of roads in Santa Cruz County are among the worst statewide, but confirms that local road maintenance needs and transportation funding shortfalls are not unique to Santa Cruz County. The study provides critical analysis and information on the statewide multimodal local transportation network's condition and funding needs. Attachments:

1. Resolution 2. Fact Sheet on Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0413\LSRneeds\LSRneeds_SR.doc

RESOLUTION NO. Adopted by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission

on the date of May 2, 2013 on the motion of Commissioner duly seconded by Commissioner

A RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE TO PROVIDE NEW SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF

THE 2012 STATEWIDE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS NEEDS ASSESSMENT

WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate over 81% of the roads in California, and all travelers are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and

WHEREAS, the results of the 2012 California Statewide Local

Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs, indicate that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating; and

WHEREAS, the results show that California’s local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline; and

WHEREAS, cities and counties need an additional $1.9 billion

just to maintain a status quo pavement condition, let alone bring the system into a good condition which is the most cost effective use of public funds; and

WHEREAS, if additional funding is not secured now, it will

cost taxpayers twice as much to fix the local system down the line; and

WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system

provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and

WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical

for interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all

need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road

system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make walking safer and more appealing, which leads to reduced vehicle emissions; and

rmoriconi

Typewritten Text

rmoriconi

Typewritten Text

rmoriconi

Typewritten Text

rmoriconi

Text Box

Attachment 1

WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces

construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and

WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, thereby preserving the public’s $271 billion pavement investment and stopping further costly deterioration, at least $8.2 billion annually is needed to stop the further decline and deterioration of our streets and roads;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION:

1. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) supports the findings of the 2012 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Update; and

2. The RTC strongly urges the State to identify a sufficient and stable funding source for local street and road maintenance and rehabilitation to ensure the safe and efficient mobility of the traveling public and the economic vitality of California.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS

__________________________________ Neal Coonerty, Chair

ATTEST: __________________________________ George Dondero, Secretary Distribution: CSAC, League of Cities, Governor Brown s:\resoluti\2013\res0413\statelsr_res.doc

FA

CT

SH

EE

T

The 2012 Statewide Needs Assessment shows a steady downward trend in pavement condition.

• In 10 years, under existing funding levels, a quarter of the streets and roads in California will be in “failed” condition. More than twice the current funding level is needed just to maintain current pavement conditions.

Cities and counties own and operate 81% of the local streets and roads in California. • Every trip – by car, bus, bicycle, or on foot - begins and ends on a local street or road. • The local system is critical for the safety and mobility of the traveling public, emergency responders, law enforcement,

farm to market needs, commerce, and multimodal needs such as bicycles and buses. The local street and road system provides two-fold opportunity for economic recovery.

• The system provides opportunity for public and private sector jobs, supporting economies across the state. • Modernizing local streets and roads will create well-paying construction jobs that help boost local economies, attract

businesses, and provide for the safe and efficient movement of both people and goods. Investing in local streets and roads now will help the environment later.

• Maintenance reduces drive time and traffic congestion, improves bicycle safety, and makes the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing - all of which lead to reduced vehicle emissions.

• Cars and trucks sustain less damage and use less fuel on well-maintained streets. • Restoring roads before they fail will reduce future construction costs and also translates to less air and water pollution.

The Assessment captures more than 98% of local streets and roads in California, with 92% of the data coming from pavement management systems.

• On the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) which ranks roadway pavement conditions on a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average for local streets and roads is 66, an “at risk” rating.

• The condition is projected to deteriorate to a PCI of 53 in 10 years. The funding shortfall is $82.2 billion over the next 10 years.

• To bring the pavement condition and essential components such as storm drains, gutters, sidewalks and curbs of local streets and roads to a level of Best Management Practices (BMP), there needs to be an additional investment of $8.22 billion dollars annually over the next ten years.

• Achieving pavement BMP is the most cost-effective way to maintain local streets and roads, and has the lowest impact on mobility and commerce.

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. performed the study. It was sponsored by the cities and counties of California, and managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Oversight Committee is composed of representatives from the following:

• League of California Cities (League) • California State Association of Counties (CSAC) • County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) • California Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) • California Rural Counties Task Force (RCTF) • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) • County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works

The full report can be downloaded at: http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org

rmoriconi

Text Box

Attachment 2

AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission FROM: Ginger Dykaar, Transportation Planner and Grace Blakeslee, Senior

Transportation Planner RE: Scenario Planning for 2014 Transportation Plans RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission: Provide input on the types of transportation projects that will be considered under each scenario as part of the scenario planning process for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Attachment 1

).

BACKGROUND As the transportation planning agency for Santa Cruz County, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) is responsible for developing, implementing, and regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for Santa Cruz County. The RTC also works with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to produce and implement the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the Monterey Bay region. These long range transportation plans include a policy element, an action element and a financial element. The Action Element identifies a list of transportation projects in the region through 2035. This past fall, RTC committees, members of the public and project sponsors identified nearly 500 projects to be considered for the RTP/MTP project list. The draft goals, targets and policies were approved by the RTC in May 2012 and the draft RTP project list was approved by the RTC in March 2013. DISCUSSION The Draft RTP project list will be divided into a “constrained” list (projects that could be implemented with foreseeable revenues through 2035) and “unconstrained” list (projects that could be funded if new revenues, above and beyond projections, are generated). In order to determine which projects will be on the “constrained” list in the RTP and MTP, RTC staff has been working closely with AMBAG staff on a scenario planning process which supports development of the state-mandated Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Scenario Planning for 2014 Transportation Plans Page 2

Scenario planning is a tool that provides a framework for land use and transportation decision making based on population, housing and employment forecasts and transportation investments. By assuming various combinations of land development and transportation system improvements under different scenario themes, one can assess how each scenario advances the region’s goals using performance measures. Transportation projects in the Draft RTP project list will be grouped into financially “constrained” packages that would be implemented under each scenario. It is most advantageous to initially analyze distinctly different scenarios. The initial scenarios typically represent extremes in the spectrum of plausible land development and transportation investments that could occur by 2035. Following the development of the initial scenarios, hybrid scenarios will be created that will bring together a mix of land use and transportation projects that best achieve regional goals and SB375 greenhouse gas emission targets. The final preferred scenario, selected from the hybrid scenarios, will be the land use and transportation vision for 2035 and will define the transportation projects that are on the constrained list in the RTP and MTP. At each step of the scenario planning process, the scenarios will be analyzed for their ability to advance the RTP/MTP goals. A qualitative analysis will be performed on the initial scenarios and the Regional Travel Demand Model will be used to analyze the hybrid scenarios and the preferred scenario. RTC staff will work with the Sustainable Transportation Council using the Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Rating System (STARS) to analyze how well the scenarios advance the RTP goals and targets at a project level for Santa Cruz County. AMBAG will analyze how well the scenarios advance the MTP goals and requirements of SB 375 at a regional level. AMBAG, with input from the tri-county Regional Transportation Planning Agency staff, Planning Directors, and the Regional Advisory Committee, have drafted the themes and descriptions of land use patterns and transportation investments to be considered in the Future Alternative SCS Scenarios. A brief description of land use patterns and transportation characteristics for each scenario as well as a more detailed description of the types of transportation investments that would be considered for Santa Cruz County specifically are provided for your input (Attachment 1

). Detailed information on the scenario planning process and results of the analysis of initial scenarios for the MTP/SCS will be presented by AMBAG and the RTC staff at the RTC June Transportation Policy Workshop (TPW) Meeting on Wednesday, June 26.

Staff recommends that the RTC provide input on the types of transportation projects that will be considered under each scenario as part of the scenario planning process for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Attachment 1

).

Scenario Planning for 2014 Transportation Plans Page 3 (Note: This page replaced by handout, click to view updated page) NEXT STEPS • May 2013 – AMBAG, with participation from the Regional Transportation

Planning Agencies, will provide a series of workshops throughout the tri-county region in mid-May 2013 to solicit input from the public on the initial scenarios. The workshop in Santa Cruz County will be held in Aptos at 6 pm on May 20, 2013 at the Santa Cruz Community Foundation, 7807 Soquel Dr, Aptos.

• June 26, 2013 RTC Transportation Policy Workshop - AMBAG and RTC staff will present the initial scenarios and a qualitative analysis of how the various scenarios compare in advancing the performance measures of the RTP and MTP.

• June/July 2013 - From the initial SCS scenarios, two hybrid SCS scenarios will be developed for further refinement and analysis as part of the process of developing a final preferred scenario.

• August 2013 - RTC staff will present the hybrid scenarios and preferred scenarios to the RTC.

• September 2013 - AMBAG will approve a final preferred scenario which will determine the transportation projects on the “constrained” list that will be evaluated in the program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and included in the RTP.

• February 2014 - The draft RTP, MTP and EIR will be available for public review.

• June 2014 - Final RTP approved by the RTC and SCS/MTP approved by AMBAG.

SUMMARY RTC staff is engaged in a scenario planning process to determine the projects that will be on the “constrained” (within projected revenues/higher priority) project list in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Staff recommends that the RTC provide input on the transportation project types that will be considered under each scenario as part of the scenario planning process for the 2014 Transportation Plans (Attachment 1).

1. Transportation Investment Scenarios Attachments:

S:\RTP\2014\StaffReports\RTC\2013-05\SR_RTP-0502.docx


Attachment 1

1

Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan Transportation Investments

Scenarios DRAFT

April, 2013

Scenario Planning: Transportation projects identified for the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) are undergoing several levels of analysis. This includes evaluation of different land use and transportation investment scenarios for the Sustainable Communities Strategy developed by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties, as well as STARS analysis of different transportation investment scenarios for just Santa Cruz County projects. Staff is seeking input on the Draft Scenarios described in this document, especially the types of transportation projects included under each scenario.

Analysis of the distinctly different scenarios should provide the public and decision makers more information about, “what if discretionary funding is invested in…”. The results of scenario planning provides information about how various combinations of transportation and land use investments will advance the goals of the RTP/MTP, including vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. It is likely that elements of each scenario will be blended to achieve the best results. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency developing the Regional Transportation Plan, will conduct a more detailed evaluation of transportation projects included in each scenario.

Each scenario proposed for evaluation will consider transportation projects funded using both discretionary and dedicated funds reasonably expected to be available through 2035. Discretionary, relatively flexible funding makes up approximately 25% of the funding identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. The remaining 75% of funding is dedicated to specific types of projects based on federal, state or local regulations. The scenario descriptions below only identify investments proposed for discretionary funding and are above and beyond what would be implemented using dedicated funds. Discretionary funds through 2035 include RSTP ($80 million), STIP funds ($80m), a half cent sales tax measure ($350m) as well as a number of other semi-flexible funds ($140m) for a total of approximately $650 million. Dedicated funds include, but are not limited to, fuel tax revenues (HUTA)

2

distributed directly to local jurisdictions, the existing ½ cent transit sales tax, state highway maintenance funds, and funding for airports.

Scenario #1: Rail/Transit Corridor Transportation Focus

Land Use Description: Rail/Transit Corridor Land Use

Transportation Description: Transportation investments would focus on supporting faster, more frequent transit service along these corridors, expanded transit service and infrastructure that supports transit priority including:

- Growth in Santa Cruz County would be focused along transit and rail corridors, around transit stations, and in urban centers.

• Regional Bus Service (e.g. Hwy 1 and 17 Express expanded service) • Local Bus Service (e.g. expand service to key destinations, improve transit

related amenities around transit stops, expand bikes on buses program) • Regional Rail Service (i.e. peak hour passenger service) • Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities that support transit • Transportation Demand Management (e.g. programs that encourage transit

use) • Transportation System Management (e.g. transit signal priority, queue jumps)

Scenario #2: Livable Streets Transportation Focus

Land Use Description: Expanded Community Centers

Transportation Description: Transportation investments would focus on enabling residents to access goods and services by shorter walking, bicycle and transit trips, in order to reduce vehicle trips. Enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities and close gaps in bicycle, pedestrian and transit networks including:

- Growth in Santa Cruz County would increase diversity of land uses and density in existing neighborhood communities (ex. Aptos and S oquel V illage, 41st Ave, Seabright, Scotts Valley Town Center, Freedom Blvd in Watsonville) and adjacent to existing commercial corridors, with an emphasis on facilitating a better jobs/housing balance.

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities (e.g. complete gaps/expand facilities and amenities that connect key destinations in priority growth areas and San Lorenzo Valley, including the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail)

• Local Bus Service (e.g. expand service to neighborhoods, improve transit related amenities around transit stops, expand bikes on buses program)

• Traffic Calming to improve safety and roundabouts that improve air quality • Transportation Demand Management (e.g. education/encouragement programs,

multiunit housing marketing) • Transportation System Management (e.g. transit signal priority, queue jumps)

(Note: This page replaced by handout, click to view updated page)

3

Scenario #3: Roadway Enhancement Transportation Focus

Land Use Description: North 101 Corridor Focused Growth

Transportation Description: Transportation investments would focus on reducing travel times and congestion by improving transportation facilities that typically serve longer trips including:

- Growth in Santa Cruz County would be focused in existing unincorporated communities.

• Local Street & Roads (e.g. multimodal intersection improvements) • Highway (e.g. Hwy 1 Auxiliary lanes, interchanges, ramp metering) • Rail Freight Service (e.g. upgrade rail line) • Transportation System Management (e.g. signal synchronization, park & ride

for carpool/vanpool) • Transportation Demand Management (e.g. 511 traveler information, rideshare,

employer individualized marketing) • Highway safety projects

Scenario #4: Salinas Valley- South 101 Highway Transportation Focus

Land Use Description: South 101 Corridor Focused Growth

Transportation Focus: Not Applicable to Santa Cruz County

- There would be limited growth in urban areas of Santa Cruz County.

Scenario #5: Transportation System Preservation Focus

Land Use Description: Baseline

Transportation Description: Transportation investments would focus on improving the condition of existing roadways, reducing the number of roadways in disrepair and maintaining transit facilities including:

- Growth in Santa Cruz County would be limited to what is already identified in the AMBAG 2035 Regional Growth Forecast, allocated according to existing general plan designations for each jurisdiction.

• Local Street and Road Maintenance • Transit Maintenance

Scenario #6: Highway Improvements Transportation Focus [Note: This scenario is not currently being proposed by AMBAG but will be considered as part of the RTC-STARS analysis.]

Land Use Description: Growth in Santa Cruz County would be focused along Highway 1.


(Note: This page replaced by handout, click to view updated page)

4

Transportation Description: Transportation investments would focus on increasing capacity or improving operations on Highway 1 through investments in highway infrastructure and regional transit services including:

• Regional Bus Service (e.g. expanded Hwy 1 and 17 Express service) • Highway (e.g. Highway 1 HOV lanes, includes auxiliary lanes and ramp

metering) • Transportation Demand Management (e.g. programs that encourage transit

use) • Transportation System Management (e.g. transit signal priority) • Park and Ride and carpool/vanpool programs

s:\rtc\tc2013\tc0513\rtp\att 1- scc rtp project types for scenarios - 3.docx

jlaning

Typewritten Text


AGENDA: May 2, 2013

TO: Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) FROM: Luis Pavel Mendez, Deputy Director RE: Permission to use rail line for Run by the Sea RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) not approve use of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way for Run by the Sea. BACKGROUND Ron Goodman, a local resident, is organizing a fundraising run from Davenport to Santa Cruz. Mr. Goodman submitted a request to the RTC for permission to use the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way on portions of the run. DISCUSSION RTC staff has reviewed the information provided by Mr. Goodman for Run by the Sea and discussed the event with representatives of Iowa Pacific Holdings, RTC’s legal counsel and RTC’s insurance broker. Because the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line has only been developed for railroad uses Iowa Pacific Holdings and RTC staff agree that there are significant safety and liability concerns against which there is not adequate protection. Once a trail is constructed, it may be possible to hold running events on the rail line right-of-way. After learning of safety and liability concerns from the safety officer of Iowa Pacific Holdings, RTC staff contacted the RTC’s insurance broker. The insurance broker communicated the following:

1. A general liability insurance policy, which is likely to be the type of policy for Run by the Sea, excludes liability associated with railroads, on railroads and within 50 feet from a railroad track. Insurance carriers can provide a rider to a client that will eliminate the exclusion for specific purposes but it is very rarely done.

2. To provide some coverage for this event, Run by the Sea would need to purchase protective railroad liability insurance. The probability of insurance carriers selling such coverage to Run by the Sea is very low because this is not the type of activity that tends to happen on a railroad.

Permission to use rail line for Run by the Sea Page 2

3. The RTC and railroad operator would not be fully protected from liability even if Run by the Sea secured railroad protective liability insurance, provided full indemnification to the RTC and operator, and required all run participants to sign full waivers.

4. Any loss is likely to be expensive.

5. If there is a loss and the RTC is found liable, it is possible that the RTC’s insurance carriers could refuse to cover the loss because no insurance carrier anticipates this type of activity when providing insurance for a railroad property.

In addition to the safety and liability concerns, Iowa Pacific Holdings communicated a maintenance concern. People walking or running next to a railroad track deteriorate the ballast and roadbed structure. This must then be repaired and could be expensive and difficult to quantify. Part of the difficulty in quantifying the maintenance expense is that in addition to runners, there are likely to be spectators who want to support the runners or are attracted on to the rail line when noticing activity. Therefore, staff recommends that the RTC not approve use of the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line right-of-way for Run by the Sea. SUMMARY RTC staff received a request for permission to use sections of the rail line right-of-way for Run by the Sea. Due to safety and liability concerns against which there is not adequate protection, RTC staff recommends that the RTC not approve use of the rail line for Run by the Sea.

S:\RTC\TC2013\TC0513\RunSea\RunSea0513.docx