August 24, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of the Legislative Action Policy Regarding Light Rail Extension to Downtown Sunnyvale
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors recently considered transit improvement priorities for its long range transportation plan, the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030). Short and long term priorities for light rail and other major transit investments were discussed and recommended. As a result of this discussion, the priority and history of extending light rail to downtown Sunnyvale from the existing Tasman corridor line through Moffett Park was reviewed by the City Council’s representatives to the Valley Transportation Authority. A June 15, 2004 Study Session resulted in direction to conduct a public hearing to consider revisions to policy on light rail extension to downtown Sunnyvale.
On August 13, 2004, the VTA staff presented to the VTA Board of Directors VTA major project priorities for FY 2005/2006. This included a “New Rail Corridors Study” of potential future light rail corridors. VTA staff, responding to an inquiry by the City’s VTA Board representative, gave indication that the VTA staff disagrees with key elements of a 1993 Cooperative Agreement between Sunnyvale and the VTA’s predecessor agency on light rail priorities. In light of this information and Council consideration of light rail priorities, staff is recommending that certain actions be taken, including research and documentation of compliance with the 1993 Cooperative Agreement through a study issue or non-routine project, and consider filing for alternative dispute resolution. Staff further recommends that the Council convey to the VTA Board membership information on the 1993 agreement and the City’s position on light rail to downtown Sunnyvale as it relates to regional light rail planning.
BACKGROUND
Light rail to downtown Sunnyvale is part of the Valley Transportation Authority’s long range rail development plan. Currently, draft versions of an updated VTP 2030 call for completion of light rail extensions to the Eastridge Neiman Road area, and from downtown San Jose to Capitol Avenue over the 30+ year life of the Plan. Light rail to downtown Sunnyvale would be studied and prioritized against other light rail extensions, presumably for construction when additional funds become available.
The City currently has a Legislative Action Policy calling for the City to seek local policy participation on regional rail projects and to support efforts to bring light rail service to downtown Sunnyvale.
1993 Light Rail Cooperative Agreement
The planning and development of a light rail system in Santa Clara County has included the City of Sunnyvale since its inception. Planning for light rail began in the 1980’s/90’s with the adoption of long range plans for a comprehensive “hub and spoke” system roughly centered on downtown San Jose and looping through North Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, the West Valley, Santa Teresa, East San Jose and Milpitas. Spokes extended along Highway 87, North 1rst Street, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Alum Rock Avenue, and to Los Gatos. Caltrain and San Jose-East Bay rail formed other rail corridor “spokes.” Attachment A shows the 1990 T-2010 Rail Plan.
Priorities for development of these rail corridors were established early. Two tiers of corridor development were included in the initial rail plans. Initial lines in high travel demand corridors were first priorities, to be followed by completion of a network of rail servlce. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, the initial light rail corridors were engineered and completed, including the Guadalupe Corridor, in two segments from Santa Teresa to North San Jose, and beginning in the late 1980’s, the Tasman Corridor across northwest Santa Clara County.
The Tasman Corridor was initially called the Fremont-South Bay corridor, to describe the general travel demand in the northwest portion of the County. The travel corridor includes east-west travel through north Sunnyvale. Early planning sought to define a feasible and cost effective alignment. From the beginning there were a number of alignment issues, including:
-Mountain View or Downtown Sunnyvale for a western terminus
-Tasman Drive or Elko Drive routes
-Differing access alternatives for the Lockheed campus
As the project environmental and engineering studies became more refined, so did issues in Sunnyvale, culminating in a lawsuit being filed in July 1993 by the City against the VTA-predecessor Santa Clara County Transit District. This lawsuit was settled several months after being filed by execution of a Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Transit District, with agreement on a number of design and alignment issues specific to the Tasman extension in Sunnyvale. Also addressed were Light Rail Corridor priorities – the document includes a statement of priority corridors, ranking Tasman-Sunnyvale after the Tasman, Vasona, Capitol, and Downtown Evergreen corridors in the Transit District’s priorities. This was ostensibly to address the “concession” of a Tasman West terminus to downtown Mountain View instead of Sunnyvale. The Agreement also includes language on what the District would do to uphold these priorities, and how disputes over subjects covered by the Agreement would be resolved.
The Cooperative Agreement recognizes there are many entities which have a decision-making role with regard to transit matters, and therefore, calls upon both the City and the District to “support each other” on light rail priorities when dealing with other entities in order to implement the Cooperative Agreement. The Cooperative Agreement recites “The District has publicly resolved that the District favors the expansion of light rail within the County with the following projects having the highest priority in the following order: Tasman Corridor; Vasona Corridor and Capitol Corridor; and Tasman-Sunnyvale Corridor.” The Agreement then goes on to state:
“since the District must be directly involved in the development and operation of any future light rail projects within the County, those [federal, state, regional and local] agencies will predictably give some weight to the District’s desires when developing the agencies’ plans. With that in mind, the District agrees to use its best efforts to obtain the above priority for the Tasman-Sunnyvale Corridor project, as that project is reflected in the above agencies’ plans. If, in spite of those efforts, any of the agencies assigns a lower priority to the Tasman-Sunnyvale Corridor project, the District will cooperate with the City in attempting to remedy such agency action to the fullest extent possible.”
In exchange for the District’s acknowledging the high priority of the Tasman-Sunnyvale Corridor, the City of Sunnyvale agreed to grant free of charge an easement for the construction and operation of the light rail extension along Tasman in Sunnyvale. Further, the City agreed to a Manila Drive reconfiguration in order to accommodate Caltrans improvements to northbound Highway 101 and the District agreed to revise its application to the FAA for its LRT trackway adjacent to Runway 32L, with the City supporting the revised application.
In addition, the City agreed to grant free of charge an easement to the District for the construction and operation of the light rail on Java Drive, and the District agreed to reimburse the City for damages to the capacity of Java Drive and depletion of the City’s capital reserves. Further, the District agreed to modify the project design to preserve needed vehicular and pedestrian traffic capacity at the Fair Oaks overcrossing during both construction and operation.
The elements of the agreement having to do with supporting light rail to downtown Sunnyvale are still in effect today because they pertain to future events. The requirement that “best efforts” be used to obtain a high priority ranking with other agencies for the Tasman-Sunnyvale Corridor remains, since the extension of light rail into Downtown Sunnyvale has not yet occurred.
Status of Planning/Engineering for Downtown Sunnyvale LRT
The Tasman Corridor Project conducted fairly substantial environmental and conceptual engineering work on LRT alignments to downtown Sunnyvale. An Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Report/Statement was prepared and certified in 1990. A series of Alignment Refinement Studies developed geometric designs for six or more promising alternatives and evaluated them from a cost/benefit perspective.
Today these studies would need to be essentially fully reconsidered due to passage of time and changed conditions. They do provide a useful general perspective on the relative costs and impacts of bringing light rail to downtown Sunnyvale. Two basic routes were studied – along Pastoria Avenue or along Mathilda Avenue – with permutations of downtown termini, Caltrain crossings, and Route 237 crossings. In today’s dollars, the cost of these alternatives would be $ 65 to $ 105 million. Significant right of way and traffic impacts would be likely. The EIR/S looked at Transportation Systems Management and Express Bus alternatives as well; these alternatives minimized or eliminated “build” impacts such as displacement and traffic degradation. Express buses were found to provide the best service and have the best ridership potential of all alternatives. LRT would strengthen land development and economic activity around stations, particularly with increases in FAR’s (above .50).
Current Status of Light Rail Planning
Light rail planning and development in the County has continued since completion of the Tasman line, as shown on Attachment B. This map shows the current and proposed light rail extensions and corridors for future study.
Currently the Vasona corridor is under construction and the Capitol corridor was recently completed to Alum Rock Avenue. The Downtown - East Valley to Eastridge and Nieman Boulevard is under design. These actions are consistent with the Cooperative Agreement. Additionally, a number of new transit corridors have been identified. The proposed VTP 2030 Plan proposes to “evaluate the feasibility, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness” of these new corridors. New corridors include Santa Teresa-Coyote Valley, Morgan Hill, West San Jose/Santa Clara, Stevens Creek and North County/Palo Alto. Tasman-Downtown Sunnyvale is not included per se, but rather as part of a Sunnyvale/Cupertino corridor. Study of these new corridors conflicts with the priorities of the 1993 Cooperative Agreement.
Further, the funding and design of the Downtown/Alum Rock extension is technically also in conflict with the Cooperative Agreement as it was considered part of the Stevens Creek Corridor at the time the Cooperative Agreement was executed. The funding of this project ahead of a downtown Sunnyvale LRT extension represents a violation of the terms of the Agreement to advocate for a higher priority to funding agencies.
Sunnyvale has not disregarded the terms of the Cooperative Agreement as the VTA rail plan has evolved. The Council’s VTA representatives over time have been made aware of the Agreement, and City staff has referenced and reminded VTA staff of the terms of the Agreement at various times. Most recently, at a Board hearing on the draft VTP 2030 Transit Program, Council Member Fowler reminded the Board and the VTA staff of the Cooperative Agreement, and Council correspondence on VTP 2030 priorities called for light rail planning to be conducted according to the terms of the Agreement.
On August 13, 2004, the VTA staff presented to the VTA Board of Directors VTA major project priorities for FY 2005/2006. This included a “New Rail Corridors Study” of potential future light rail corridors. This study is proposed to “Establish priorities through Board-approved evaluation criteria.” VTA staff, responding to an inquiry by Council Member Fowler, the City’s VTA Board representative, gave indication that the VTA staff disagrees with key elements of a 1993 Cooperative Agreement between Sunnyvale and the VTA’s predecessor agency on light rail priorities. In response to the question whether the priorities established by the 1993 Cooperative Agreement would be taken into account in the New Rail Corridors Study, VTA’s General Manager answered in the negative, and stated that a legal resolution was necessary.
EXISTING POLICY
The following documents contain policy direction on this issue:
Legislative Action Policy 1.i.3, Seek local policy participation on regional rail projects and support efforts to bring light rail service to downtown Sunnyvale.
Land Use and Transportation Element R1.1, Advocate the City’s interests to regional agencies that make land use and transportation system decisions that affect Sunnyvale.
Land Use and Transportation Element R1.9, Support flexible and appropriate alternative transportation modes and transportation system management measures that reduce reliance on the automobile and serve changing regional and City-wide land use and transportation needs.
Land Use and Transportation Element C3.5, Support a variety of transportation modes.
Land Use and Transportation Element C3.6, Minimize expansion of the current roadway system, while maximizing opportunities for alternative transportation systems and related programs.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion is premised on the belief the City Council still considers light rail in downtown Sunnyvale to be a priority.
Scenarios for Improving the Priority of a Downtown Sunnyvale LRT Extension
There may be a number of differing approaches that could be taken to advance a downtown Sunnyvale LRT project. Certain paths are difficult to define; however certain circumstances can be readily identified. Advancing a high dollar, modest impact, locally focused transportation project in the regional political forum requires significant politicking. Appealing to a significant majority of the cities in the County is a necessity. Satisfying the significant political force of the City of San Jose is critical. Achieving the support of the County Board of Supervisors may be essential. This is to secure VTA support; achieving the technical and political requirements of Bay region and State or Federal entities is another major obstacle.
Staff has imagined three possible strategies for improving the priority of light rail to downtown Sunnyvale. This information contains a degree of supposition, and is intended to foster thought on the effort and outcome involved in pursuing alternative policy approaches for light rail development.
Invoking the Cooperative Agreement
According to the Cooperative Agreement, the City can call for the VTA to continue to “use its best efforts” and to work with the City in bolstering the priority of the extension into Sunnyvale. If VTA is not willing to adhere to the commitment made by its predecessor, the City has the right under section 15 of the Cooperative Agreement to seek alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
The ADR process called for in the Cooperative Agreement includes providing written notice to the VTA of the facts perceived to be a breach and a prompt meeting between the parties to attempt to resolve the issues. Multiple meetings may be held. If desired, the services of a professional mediator may be employed, with costs equally divided. If mediation is unsuccessful, then binding arbitration may be invoked.
Pursuing such a course may enable the parties to discuss their concerns more informally than has so far been the situation in the context of formal hearings on the VTP 203 plan and may facilitate the reaching of a consensus. Since the City believes the terms of the Cooperative Agreement are being violated, and to date VTA disputes that assertion, joint discussions and the use of a mediator may provide insight as to the strengths and weaknesses of the varying positions and assist in resolution. If the ADR process is utilized through the level of mediation, any agreement reached and signed off on by the parties would be binding. If the ADR process is utitlized through the level of binding arbitration, the determination of the arbitrator has the same force and effect as a court decree.
Some steps to be followed under this alternative could be:
1. Communicate to the VTA Board of Directors information on the 1993 Cooperative Agreement, and specify that the pending New Rail Corridors Study shall abide by the terms of the Agreement.
2. Research and document compliance with the 1993 Cooperative Agreement.
3. Once documentation is reviewed and approved, notify the VTA of the City’s invoking of the alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Conducting records searches will require additional resources. Also, dispute resolution requires the services of a professional mediator and may require the support of technical experts. Staff estimates that a budget of $30,000 will be required to pursue this course of action.
The recent statements and actions by VTA staff indicate that the VTA does not intend to abide by the spirit, if not the letter of the 1993 Cooperative Agreement priorities. Staff believes that this fact, combined with the acceleration of the New Rail Corridors Study by the VTA, pushes the issue of invoking the 1993 Cooperative Agreement.
Seeking Amendment of the VTP 2030
The “bureaucratic” procedure for establishing regional project priorities is the planning and programming process. Inclusion in the regional plan opens the door for subsequent programming of federal/state/regional dollars as they come available. The recent VTP 2030 plan development initiated this current discussion of Sunnyvale policy; if Sunnyvale were able to qualify a downtown Sunnyvale project or influence the decision making on priorities in VTP 2030, this would achieve a major milestone towards delivering a project.
The VTA is now intending on conducting a New Rail Corridors Study in FY 2005/2006. This is clearly the avenue by which the City would need to pursue both technical and political justification for a downtown Sunnyvale project through amendment of VTP 2030.
To do this, the City would need to qualify its project against all other regional transit projects according to VTA-developed project evaluation criteria (see attachment C for recent project evaluation criteria). (As the area’s transit provider the VTA manages this process internally, so the City was not solicited for input – a first step might be to call for cities to be included in the project nomination process.). To understand which projects the City would be competing against, the currently proposed VTP 2030 Transit Program is included as Attachment D. Conducting an effective campaign for identification of a technically justifiable downtown project will require specialized planning and engineering assistance, and an elevated prioritization of staff resources. For example, the City retained light rail consulting expertise throughout the planning and implementation of the Tasman light rail project.
The City would then need to secure VTA Board concurrence. The Board is made up of five small city representatives (two north county, two west valley, and one south county/Milpitas), five City of San Jose representatives, and two members of the Board of Supervisors. The unanimous support of at least two of these “voting blocks”, and ideally the support from a majority of each of the three blocks, requires convincing on several levels – the technical, the regional, the parochial, the financial, the popular. This can require a dedicated, concerted, coordinated effort among policy makers and staff, with requisite resources. Not so much as an attractive project but a marketable regional plan is needed. It is unlikely that a downtown Sunnyvale project can move forward on its own without being part of a scheme with regional appeal. The success of this approach may hinge upon intangibles such as political equity, editorial support, and diplomacy. Consequences of clumsy politicking in this arena could impact on a much broader basis outside funding and other transportation policy affecting Sunnyvale.
Some steps to be followed under this alternative could be:
1. Seek policy and technical participation in the upcoming VTA New Rail Corridors Study, and allocate resources necessary to support a high level of participation and technical support for the Study.
2. Strengthen City policy on light rail to downtown Sunnyvale to emphasize an implementation stance. Advocate through the Council’s existing Valley Transportation Authority, ABAG, BAAQMD, and other transportation-related IGR positions for a higher priority in the VTP 2030 and other long range plans.
3. Establish a Task Force of Council, staff, and/or other key constituency representatives to develop and implement a lobbying strategy. This could include retention of professional lobbying services. Cost of lobbying services could be in the range of $ 25,000 to $ 50,000/year.
4. Encourage the establishment of a local PAC or advocacy group to support downtown light rail.
Demonstrating Local Commitment/Reducing Regional Participation
A third approach could be to focus efforts locally and develop significant local commitment and support before advocating for outside resources. Demonstration of community support is critical and highly effective in securing outside resources. In the public forum as well as in political realms, having a large, organized, focused contingent can help move the major obstacles that face a large scale transportation project. Under any scenario, a strong consensus is essential. Development of local funding resources, or providing for project development (planning and engineering) using local resources can streamline securing of outside funds and/or attract matching funds. High local matches routinely score highly in project evaluations. Reducing the draw down of regional funding resources dilutes the necessity to prove the project’s regional significance and balance geographic equity of transportation investment. Engineering projects outside of State and Federal processes streamlines review and project administration, although it can limit capital funding options – once outside of a process, it is difficult to come back in. However, an all-locally funded project has the promise of more local control over design, project delivery, and cost, and can be more responsive to constituencies. It may be essential in the case of the downtown Sunnyvale extension, as the extension may not have sufficient technical merit to compete for federal transit “New Starts” dollars, or the political cachet to attract scarce State transportation funding. Of course VTA participation would be necessary at some level if LRT technology is to be favored. A locally developed project allows greater consideration of other transportation modes and options.
Some steps that could be followed under this alternative could be:
1. Establish capital and/or study issue projects to investigate or initiate work on a downtown light rail extension or other transit service. This could take the form of a community outreach plan for transit service in the Tasman/Downtown corridor, a study of funding alternatives, or initiation of project environmental planning and engineering. A community plan could cost in the area of $50,000-75,000. The cost of a funding alternative study would begin at $ 100,000. An environmental study for a major rail project can run more than $ 1 million, and preliminary engineering would be upwards of $ 15 million.
2. Encourage the establishment of a local PAC or advocacy group to support downtown light rail.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with reviewing the City’s Legislative Action Policy regarding light rail to downtown Sunnyvale. There could be additional unbudgeted costs should the Council chose to pursue certain alternatives for increasing planning and advocacy for light rail.
Researching compliance with the 1993 Cooperative Agreement and considering alternative dispute resolution is estimated to require a budget of $30,000.
The chances for successful pursuit of a high priority for downtown Sunnyvale light rail through the pending VTA New Rail Corridors Study would be greatly increased by investing in technical and possibly outreach and lobbyist support. Staff estimates that these resources would cost up to $ 150,000/year.
The cost of pursuing improved light rail priority through demonstrating local commitment and reducing the scope of required regional participation could range broadly from $ 50,000 for a community outreach planning study to upwards of $ 15 million for environmental and preliminary engineering studies.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the Council agenda on the City's official notice bulletin board, posting of the agenda and report on the City's web page, and the availability of the report in the Library and the City Clerk's Office.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that recent actions and statements by the Valley Transportation Authority staff indicate an unwillingness to recognize and abide by the 1993 Cooperative Agreement. Therefore, resolution of the bearing of the 1993 Cooperative Agreement becomes a priority. Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Communicate to the VTA Board of Directors information on the 1993 Cooperative Agreement, and specify that the pending New Rail Corridors Study shall abide by the terms of the Agreement.
2. Research and document compliance with the 1993 Cooperative Agreement, through a study issue or non-routine project.
3. Once documentation is reviewed and approved, file for alternative dispute resolution.
Prepared by:
Jack Witthaus
Transportation and Traffic Manager
Reviewed by:
Marvin A. Rose
Director of Public Works
Approved by:
Amy Chan
City Manager
Attachments
A. 1990 T-2010 Rail Plan Map
B. Proposed VTP 2030 Transit Program Map
C. VTP 2030 Transit Evaluation Criteria
D. Proposed VTP 2030 Transit Program