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

Multi‐Modal Facility Feasibility Study Community Open House #3

November 16, 2017

1

The presentation will begin at 7:05 p.m.

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

2

Community Open House #3

Presentation Q&A Session Open House

3

Agenda

• Introduce the feasibility study
• Identify purpose and goals of the feasibility study
• Describe site selection process
• Present potential sites along the Union Pacific

Rail Road’s Sacramento Subdivision Line (west side line)

• Answer questions
• Gather community input

4

Study Goals

• 1. Identify and assess the feasibility of potential

locations for a multi‐modal facility on existing or future passenger rail service lines

• 2. Evaluate potential reductions to commuter traffic
• 3. Select a recommended location(s) using a detailed

evaluation process and public input

• 4. Inform future planning and funding efforts for a

multi‐modal facility

5

Study Process

Schedule – 8 to 9 months (June 2017 to Jan/Feb 2018) Process:

• 1. Identify potential site locations
• 2. Estimate ridership and congestion relief
• 3. Evaluate site locations based on evaluation criteria
• 4. Present draft results to the public
• 5. Incorporate public input
• 6. Identify recommended multi‐modal facility site(s)

6

Partnering Agencies

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

7

What is a Multi‐Modal Facility?

Many modes of transportation in one place, such as:

• Bus
• Rail
• Car and Bicycle Parking
• Pick‐up/Drop‐off
• Taxi/Lyft/Uber/Shuttle
• Bicycle Facilities
• Pedestrian Facilities

8

Benefits of a Multi‐Modal Facility

• Provides centralized access to bus & rail transit
• Improves connectivity between modes
• Enhances access to transportation alternatives

which can reduce traffic, commute times & emissions

• Potential to generate economic development

activity

9

Rail Service Connectivity

Connecting to existing or future rail services will maximize the benefits of a Multi‐Modal Facility:

• Gain access to national, state and regional destinations
• Leverages past and future infrastructure investments
• Potential to have Multi‐Modal Facility costs partially or

fully covered by near term grant opportunities

Feasibility Study has focused on potential sites immediately adjacent to existing or future rail services

10

Existing Rail Facilities

11

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

UPRR West Side Line – Tonight’s Focus

12

10/25 City Council Direction

• Focus on the

UPRR West Side Line

• Rail line of

likely future passenger service as provided by the SJJPA

UPRR Sacramento Subdivision Line (West Side Line)

Site Requirements – Initial Screening

• Adjacent to a current or future passenger rail corridor
• Within or adjacent to City Limits
• Space for 1,000‐foot long platform along tracks
• 5‐10 acres for facilities including parking
• Connectivity to existing transportation system
• Prefer vacant lots or lots with low real estate impacts
• Minimize risk of environmental issues (e.g. wetlands, soil

contamination)

• Avoid excessive construction/site design costs

13

Site Requirements – Detailed Evaluation Criteria

• Within City Limits
• Rail service feasibility
• Site adequacy for

multimodal use

• Grant potential
• Accessibility
• Ridership estimation
• Site acquisition feasibility

14

• Cost
• Other risk factors
• Congestion relief
• Changes to bus network
• Nearby bus and bike

facilities

• Opportunity for supporting

uses

Community Outreach

Three Open Houses

• August 2, 2017
• September 14, 2017
• Tonight (November 16, 2017)

Two Online Forums

• August 2 – 16 (Questionnaire)
• September 14 – 21 (Comment Forum)

City Council update on August 23rd via Consent Agenda Preliminary Results Presented to City Council on October 25th

15

Four Sites For Consideration along UPRR West Side Line

16

Site W1 – Bilby & Willard Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd Site W3 – Laguna & Dwight Site W4 – Dwight

Site W1 – Bilby & Willard

17

Future Kammerer from I‐5 to Hwy 99 Future Willard extension to Future Kammerer N

Previous Public Input on Site W1 – Bilby & Willard

18

Previous Public Input on Site W1:

• Not a centralized location.
• Viewed by some as the most

viable location for commuting to Sacramento Area

• Possibilities for future bay area

connections

• Neighborhood concerns with

home values, crime, traffic, train noise

Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd

19

N

Previous Public Input on Site W2 – Franklin & Elk Grove Blvd

20

Previous Public Input on Site W2:

• Concerns with impacts to the

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

• Impacts to view shed of

refuge open space

• Neighborhoods concerns with

home values, crime, traffic, train noise

Neighborhood Impacts

21

• Crime
• San Diego Association of Governments, 2009. Understanding Transit’s Impact on Public Safety.

http://sandiegohealth.org/sandag/publicationid_1483_10995.pdf

• City of Tracy
• Property Values
• Diaz, Roderick, 1999. Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values.

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice083.pdf

• University of California, Berkeley, 2017. Rail and the California Economy.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/Rail_CAEconomy_Book_Report_V28_LowResPages.pdf

• Strategic Economics, 2014. Property Value and Fiscal Benefits of BART.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2014‐08%20BARTPropValues_Final.pdf

• Noise
• Elk Grove is currently in a designated “Quiet Zone”, where trains cannot use

their horns unless there is a special circumstance requiring the horn

• Traffic

Neighborhood Impacts – City of Tracy (ACE)

22

Neighborhood Impacts – City of Tracy (ACE)

23

Site W3 & W4 – Laguna & Dwight

24

N

Previous Public Input on Sites W3 & W4

25

Previous Public Input on Sites W3 & W4:

• These sites are new and

are being further considered as a result of previous public input on Sites W1 & W2

• Impacts existing

businesses & results in higher project costs

Current Study Recap

26

• Focus on sites along the UPRR West Side line
• Goal is to identify a preferred location based on

analysis of all site factors

• City Council will receive all public input regarding all
• f the sites discussed at Open Houses in the Study,

and either identify a preferred location for further site specific analysis, or identify multiple sites that could be considered for future site analysis/study

Next Steps

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

27

Thank You For Your Participation

28

Contact Information

Tom Metcalf, Project Manager tmetcalf@elkgrovecity.org 916‐478‐2281 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, CA 95758

Project Webpage & Online Comment Forum

bit.ly/ElkGroveMultimodal