March 23, 2006 - Granicus

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING

SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 7:00 P.M.

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 330 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California

Late agenda material can be inspected in TAM’s office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. TAM is located at 781 Lincoln Avenue, Suite, 160, San Rafael.

The meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations (assisted

listening device, sign language interpreters, etc.) should be directed to Denise Merleno, 415-226-0820 or email:[email protected] no later than 5 days before the meeting date.

The Marin County Civic Center is served by several bus lines including Marin Transit Routes 45, 45K, 49, 233, and 259. Route 45 provides service to the Civic Center Hall of Justice Arch until 8:43 PM. In the evening, Golden Gate

Transit provides service until 11:24 PM with routes 70 and 80 along Highway 101 from the San Pedro Road bus pads, which are about a half mile away. To access the San Pedro bus pad NB, walk south down San Pedro Rd and take the footpath to the NB 101 onramp where the bus stop is located. To access the SB pad, walk down San Pedro Rd and under the freeway, turn right on Merrydale and then take the footpath near the SB onramp to the bus pad. For arrival

and departure times, call 511 or visit www.marintransit.org, or www.goldengate.com.

781 Lincoln Avenue Suite 160 San Rafael California 94901 Phone: 415/226-0815 Fax: 415/226-0816 www.tam.ca.gov Belvedere Sandra Donnell Corte Madera Diane Furst Fairfax John Reed Larkspur Dan Hillmer Mill Valley Stephanie Moulton-Peters Novato Eric Lucan Ross P. Beach Kuhl San Anselmo Ford Greene San Rafael Gary Phillips Sausalito Herb Weiner Tiburon Alice Fredericks County of Marin Susan L. Adams Katie Rice Kathrin Sears Steve Kinsey Judy Arnold

AGENDA

1. Chair’s Report (Discussion)

2. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion)

3 Executive Director’s Report (Discussion)

4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. Executive Committee – Commissioner Moulton-Peters

b. SMART – Vice-Chair Arnold

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action) – Attachment

a. Approve TAM Board Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2013, July 23, 2013 and July 25, 2013

b. Review and Recommend for Approval the 2013 Congestion Management Program Update

c. Executive Director’s Compensation Adjustment

d. Proclamation of Support for Marin National Plug In Day

e. Programming Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Funds

6. Caltrans Report (Discussion)

7. Greenbrae Corridor Project Recommendations (Action) – Attachment

8. Open time for items not on the agenda

MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

TAM

JUNE 27, 2013 6:00 PM

ROOM 330

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 13

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Alice Fredericks, Chair, Tiburon Town Council

Carla Condon, Corte Madera Town Council Dan Hillmer, Larkspur City Council

Ford Greene, San Anselmo Town Council Gary Phillips, San Rafael City Council Herb Weiner, Sausalito City Council John Reed, Fairfax Town Council Judy Arnold, Marin County Board of Supervisors Kathrin Sears, Marin County Board of Supervisors

P. Beach Kuhl, Ross Town Council Pat Eklund, Novato City Council (Alternate)

Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Mill Valley City Council Steve Kinsey, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Susan Adams, Marin County Board of Supervisors Members Absent: Diane Furst, Corte Madera Town Council

Eric Lucan, Novato City Council Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors Sandra Donnell, Belvedere City Council

Staff Members Present Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director

Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation

Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer Linda Jackson, Planning Manager Suzanne Loosen, Senior Transportation Planner Scott McDonald, Associate Transportation Planner

Chair Alice Fredericks called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1. Convene in Open Session Chair Fredericks noted that the first item will be to swear in Carla Condon, the alternate from Corte Madera. Executive Director Dianne Steinhauser administered the oath of office.

Item 5a-1

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN TAM June 27, 2013

Page 2 of 13

The Board then adjourned to Closed Session. 2. Adjourn to Closed Session

Discuss Executive Director’s Annual Evaluation of Performance Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)

3. Reconvene in Open Session (7:00 p.m.) Announcement from Closed Session Chair Fredericks reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m., with all members present as indicated. She stated that a Closed Session was held, with nothing to report. 4. Public Hearing on the Proposed FY2013/14 Annual Budget ED Steinhauser introduced the item, discussing the budget process thus far, including reporting to the Marin Managers Association and opportunities for public input, including a comment period. She noted that the Board tentatively adopted the Budget at their May 13 meeting in order to accommodate a deadline of inputting information into the County’s accounting system. She added that no comments had been received on the budget since that adoption and through today. Chair Fredericks opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward. 5. Public Hearing on the 2013 Strategic Plan Update ED Steinhauser gave a brief staff report on the item stating that the Draft SPU was posted for a 45-day comment on April 25 and to date no comments on that Update have been received. Chair Fredericks opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward. 6. Chair’s Report (Discussion) Chair Fredericks indicated she had no report. 7. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion) None. 8. Executive Director's Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser highlighted items in her written report included in the supplemental packet of information provided at the outset of the meeting including: the BART service disruption, Plan Bay Area, Marin General Hospital’s winning of a carpooling contest, and a report on how to find TAM salaries online. She also introduced Torina Wilson, TAM’s high school intern, a senior at San Rafael High School who will be working at TAM over the summer months

Item 5a-1


Page 3 of 13

9. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. Executive Committee Commissioner Moulton-Peters indicated there was no Executive Committee report because there are no items on the Consent Calendar that were discussed at the June 10th Executive Committee meeting. She noted however that they did discuss Items 15a, 16 and 17 and made recommendations, which will be discussed later in the meeting. b. SMART Vice Chair Arnold reported she sent the SMART report to each Commissioner, and ED Steinhauser said copies were also included with the supplemental packet. Vice Chair Arnold indicated willingness to answer any questions from the Commission. Chair Kinsey expressed appreciation for the report. He also commented that there is so much going on at SMART, and the many details it takes to get a railroad started. He proposed asking SMART to make a presentation to TAM sometime in the fall for an update of activity as well as timelines, budget and challenges.

Chair Fredericks noted that Item 13, the Golden Gate Transit District’s request for Measure A transportation sales tax funds, was being pulled from the agenda for this meeting.

10. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action)

a. Approve TAM Board Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2013 b. Appointment to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) c. Authorize Executive Director to Approve a Contract to Prepare the 2013 Congestion

Management Plan Update d. Reconfirm TAM Board Action of May 13, 2013 Adopting the TAM FY2013-14 Annual

Budget e. Adopt 203 Measure A Transportation Sales Tax (TST) Strategic Plan Update f. Measure A Transportation Sales Tax (TST) and Measure Vehicle Registration Fee

(VFR) Allocation to Local Infrastructure Projects in Strategy 3.2 and Element 1.1, Respectively

g. Second Amendment to the Funding Agreement with the City of Larkspur for Old Redwood Highway Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

h. Central Marin Ferry Connection Multi-Use Pathway – Construction Funding Request Chair Fredericks indicated that Item 10b was being pulled from the Consent Calendar. ED Steinhauser explained that staff had not had time to get feedback from local representatives in the area and that the item would be re-submitted to the Board for their consideration in July. Commissioner Sears stated she would like to comment on Item 10c. She noted that the report says the 2013 Congestion Management Plan Update was based on the 2012 Traffic Survey data. She expressed concern over the traffic survey data because it was not done on a weekend, when the traffic

Item 5a-1


Page 4 of 13

in Tamalpais Valley is the most onerous. She thought it important that the data be relevant and accurate. Commissioner Arnold moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item b. Commissioner Kinsey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 11. Caltrans Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser noted that a written report was included with the Commission packet. Regarding the reference in the report to the Greenbrae Corridor project, Commissioner Condon asked about the reference to the point on 101 2/10 of a mile north of the Tamalpais interchange. She asked whether that was supposed to be north of the overcrossing because she thought the overcrossing was the southernmost point of the Greenbrae project; staff indicated willingness to do more research on the matter and report back to the Board. 12. State Legislation (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Josh Shaw from Shaw, Yoder & Antwih, as well as David Chan, TAM’s Manager of Programming & Legislation, to present the staff report. Mr. Shaw discussed the state budget signed by the governor today, highlights and effects on transportation funding; as well as discussing pending legislation such as the cap-and-trade bill, clean fuel investment programs, and renewal of certain vehicle registration fees (for which he asked the Board to take a position of support). He also updated the Board on two proposed constitutional amendments that lower the voter approval percentage requirement, legislation allowing for CEQA exemptions (AB417), and one to add a non-infrastructure component to Safe Routes programs. Commissioner Adams noted that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is also in support of AB8 and SB11, which allow the lowering of the voter threshold for special taxes. . She also expressed concern about allowing CEQA exemptions and asked for confirmation that the only exemptions in AB417 were for restriping, parking, signal timing, and signage, and that the legislation will allow local agencies to do more review if they think it needed. Mr. Shaw said yes to both, indicating that they waited to recommend support to be sure the necessary protections were still there. He also noted there are specific findings that have to be made before the exemption can be granted. Chair Fredericks asked if there was a way to support the CEQA bill in its current language, in case of later amendments. Mr. Shaw indicated that his staff would follow the bill and let TAM know if there are changes. Commissioner Greene asked if the bills seeking to lower the voter approval levels would need to be submitted to the voters for a simple majority approval, and Mr. Shaw confirmed that was the process. Regarding AB417, Commissioner Eklund asked if the lead agency in a project is not a municipality, the local municipality would be notified in the CEQA process. Mr. Shaw said he thought so, but he would need to confirm that. He indicated TAM could vote to support contingent on that requirement.

Item 5a-1


Page 5 of 13

Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on the item, with no speakers coming forward. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the recommended positions, including suggestions made by the Commission. Commissioner Weiner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 13. GGBHTD’s Request for Measure A Transportation Sales Tax (TST) Funds to Implement

Ferry Feeder Bus Pilot Program (Action) Item was pulled from the agenda. Item #19 taken out of order. 19. Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvement Project – Advisory Working

Group Update and Possible Budget Request (Action) Chair Fredericks noted there was supplemental information at each Commissioner station and for the public at the agenda table. ED Steinhauser presented the staff report which recommended that the TAM Board accept the status report update of the Working Group activities, and approve additional funding in the amount of $56,000 from Regional Measure 2 funds assigned to the project to allow further expert guidance and analysis of newly submitted improvements options proposed by the public in response to the Working Group request. She discussed the latest Working Group meetings (June 10th and June 24th) and decisions made regarding the numerous alternative scenarios submitted by the public as roadway improvement options. She indicated that Principal Project Delivery Manager Bill Whitney would share with the Board what alternatives those were, studies that are recommended and anticipated costs of that work. She added, though, that all the information is also contained in the supplemental packets on the dais. Mr. Whitney reviewed the options the Working Group wanted to research further, including the one submitted by Mr. David Bracken the Town Manager for Corte Madera but who submitted the plan as a private citizen, the two submitted by Marin Deserves Better (MDB) (one for northbound and one for southbound), and the northbound option submitted in the environmental draft document. He also indicated that the Working Group had proposed a phased approach to evaluate the feasibility of each proposal. He referred to the detailed scope of work and cost estimates that have been prepared. He added that Caltrans has indicated agreement with the further evaluations of the proposals but had expressed concern about the MDB northbound option. He noted that staff recommends not spending any more funds on the analysis of the MDB northbound option, as a similar option had been studied and rejected earlier in the Greenbrae project process. If the Working Group directs, however, staff is willing to study the MDB northbound option further. ED Steinhauser added that staff would also like to meet with Marin Deserves Better to discuss the concerns listed by Caltrans in the letter received today, and Mr. Whitney reported he is trying to schedule that meeting early next week.

Item 5a-1


Page 6 of 13

Mr. Whitney reiterated the staff recommendation that an additional $56,000 from RM2 funds be allocated to further provide expert guidance and advise the Working Group of feasible options that should be carried forward. ED Steinhauser also discussed direction from some of the Working Group to analyze the options for potential fatal flaws (impacts on Sir Francis Drake traffic and/or the environment) before expending too much money and effort into technical studies. Commissioner Eklund asked whether the staff recommendation includes no further study on the MDB northbound option. Mr. Whitney said yes, they would prefer to send that option back to the Working Group to see if they are interested in putting a new structure over Corte Madera Creek. Commissioner Eklund said she would like to hear from members of the Working about their reaction to staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Condon expressed concern that delaying consideration of that option could result in a complete loss of funds for the necessary studies. She said she would like to be sure that meetings with the MDB team be expedited to see if there are adjustments that can be made to address Caltrans’ concerns. She also was concerned that the southbound MDB proposal not be lost or dropped while the northbound option is being further evaluated. She noted that millions of dollars have already been spent on the project and she wondered whether some of the proposed new studies might be duplicative and could be pulled from the files. Mr. Whitney confirmed that the MDB southbound option would continue to be studied. He also confirmed that staff is using as many previous studies as possible. Commissioner Condon asked for more information about Caltrans’ concerns related to the northbound option, and Mr. Whitney indicated the primary one was with the weave in traffic that was not addressed under MDB’s proposal. He noted that the rest are delineated in the supplemental information, including a letter from Caltrans. Commissioner Condon asked when staff plans to meet with Marin Deserves Better, and Mr. Whitney reviewed tentative dates in the following week. Commissioner Kinsey said he supports the staff recommendation and was appreciative of how they handled it, given Caltrans’ concerns. Chair Fredericks asked if the $30,000 reduction in costs is from earlier cost estimates or the one included with this report. Mr. Whitney said it was a reduction from the earlier cost estimates. She also asked if the request with tonight’s item was for phase 1 and 2; Mr. Whitney said it was just phase 1. Commissioner Reed said he, too, was concerned about MDB’s northbound proposal. He was glad that staff was still wanting to meet with them, and he encouraged having the meeting with as many members of their group as possible. He wondered whether there might be components that didn’t make it into the final proposal but would address some of Caltrans’ issues. He said he was reluctant to rescind the $30,000 for further investigation regarding feasibility until after a meeting between Caltrans, TAM staff and MDB. Commissioner Eklund asked why the Caltrans document addressed Option 3 but not Option 4, and Mr. Whitney explained that Option 4 has been vetted by the environmental process thus far. Commissioner Eklund questioned why Caltrans didn’t go directly to MDB to discuss their concerns – she commented

Item 5a-1


Page 7 of 13

on public perception of government, in general, noting that if TAM allowed the option to be further evaluated would restore some public trust. She recommended not taking away the funding and to allow the full process to continue. ED Steinhauser explained that staff is not recommending against Option 3, only that the funding be held in abeyance until after the next Working Group meeting, since Caltrans has clearly indicated that the only way Option 3 could work is with an entire reconstruction of northbound Drake offramps over Corte Madera creek, which the Working group had been reluctant to agree to. She also noted that Caltrans will be at the next Working Group meeting to answer questions about the project and the different options. Commissioner Reed expressed that he thought the MDB option deserved a full review, even if the costs go beyond what is currently proposed. Vice Chair Arnold commented on the long process to date, and the September deadline that is fast approaching, as well as the concern that the funding might be lost if this goes on too long. She also thought there was better use for the $48 million than to rush this process. She expressed appreciation for the bike-ped components and would be supportive of implementing them. She added that there may be future opportunities for improvements if the funds are instead dedicated to the SMART extension to Larkspur. Commissioner Phillips, a member of the Working Group expressed appreciation to ED Steinhauser for being responsive to the members of that Group and their requests to staff. He questioned whether the use of the $30,000 could be at the discretion of the Working Group, contingent upon them reaching consensus about the northbound MDB option. He also asked how much of the $48 million is in jeopardy if the project is not finalized by September. ED Steinhauser noted that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) had sent a letter asking TAM to make a decision by September 30th regarding the obligation of $48 million by March April of 2014. She added that there is not an alternative ready project that can replace this one, although she acknowledged there might be some extension of time given. She indicated that if some agreement can be found among the Board regarding the project design, she was hopeful that MTC will work with TAM regarding the timing and continued access to the funding. She also noted that if any features of the current proposal can be retained the whole approval process would go more quickly; MTC would not want to consider a completely new design. ED Steinhauser acknowledged that the $30,000 could be allocated at the Working Group’s discretion, but there were many variables for her to be able to predict how well that would work given the amount of traffic and engineering that could be necessary depending on what was recommended by the Working group. Commissioner Phillips agreed with comments by Commissioner Reed regarding the fact that the Working Group will actually have two meetings before the next Board meeting, and that granting the Group the decision-making power over the $30,000 would be prudent to allow them to move forward if they desire. ED Steinhauser indicated that staff could support that scenario. Chair Fredericks commented on the number of cars that go through that jurisdiction daily and the many recurrent traffic backups that occur. She discussed the importance of resolving the traffic issues as soon as possible with as much support as possible. Commissioner Condon discussed the issues at stake for Corte Madera, that her Town has been discussing it since 2002, and the Town’s strong opposition to the current proposed plan. She expressed appreciation to Marin Deserves Better for their efforts to come up with a better design, and she indicated they deserved to be included in the discussions with Caltrans regarding their plan. She was

Item 5a-1


Page 8 of 13

also concerned about the time constraints and thanked Commissioner Phillips for suggesting that the $30,000 be used at the discretion of the Group rather than wasting time having to get funding approval later in the process. She asked that a meeting between Caltrans, MDB and staff be held as soon as possible to evaluate the proposals and hear Caltrans’ objections face-to-face in an effort to resolve those issues in a manner that the community can support. Commissioner Kuhl stated that one of the biggest issues facing TAM at this point is the September deadline and questioned whether it could be met regardless of what direction TAM decides to pursue. He thought MTC should be approached sooner regarding granting a deadline extension. As the MTC representative on the Board, Commissioner Kinsey confirmed that he has already raised the issue of a time extension for the project. He noted that if TAM does not come up with a consensus project within the funding available, no extension will be granted. He also noted that this is only one of two projects that were approved for RM2 funds that have not moved forward, and MTC would like to go to the voters to request more funding by showing completed RM2 projects. Commissioner Sears expressed concern about the money that has been spent thus far; she thought staff was prudent in recommending that the $30,000 be held in reserve rather than spending it to develop a project that already has serious concerns about it. She was concerned about environmental concerns as well with the proposed crossing over Corte Madera Creek, and she questioned if any money had been designated yet for bike/ped enhancements. ED Steinhauser explained that the bike-ped proposals had been presented at the last Working Group meeting, but there was no time to discuss them – they will be discussed at the next Working Group meeting, however. Commissioner Sears questioned whether it might be better to delay funding altogether until feedback of the bike/ped options is available. . ED Steinhauser discussed some of the questions that need to be investigated and discussed, noting that the September deadline makes it necessary for the Group to continue to work on what it can in the next two meetings. Commissioner Reed noted there is much awareness among the Working Group about the environmental issues with the creek. Commissioner Sears expressed concern about funding to be spent to design a new bridge for the Creek when it is not known yet whether or not the work will be feasible. Commissioner Reed moved to approve the budget request for $86,000 in additional funds to support the Working Group’s request for further study. Commissioner Eklund seconded the motion. Commissioner Phillips asked for additional information about what is being requested by the September deadline, which ED Steinhauser discussed. He was doubtful that the work still remaining in the Working group would be completed ED Steinhauser expressed more confidence in the process. Commissioner Moulton-Peters suggested that the Board focus on the $48 million of funding that has been allocated and use it to pay for bike/ped elements and the northbound options, but leave the southbound ones for a later round. Commissioner Greene asked what the performance goals are that TAM needs to accomplish by the September deadline, which ED Steinhauser reviewed as an agreed upon design, a defined scope of work and schedule, and cost estimates. He asked Commissioner Reed to modify the motion to include discretion on the part of the Working Group as to how the additional $30,000 would be used. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to the change.

Item 5a-1


Page 9 of 13

Commissioner Hillmer expressed appreciation for the Working Group’s efforts and to staff for their work supporting the Working Group. He asked about the work of the TAM Board in designating how the project’s RM2 funds will be spent. He also expressed support for using some of the elements already in the environmental document for the northbound option. He noted that if there is no consensus among the TAM Board for one of the options within the allowed time frame, he recommended having the president of SMART come meet with TAM to find agreement, as well as TAM’s representative to MTC, Steve Kinsey to come help the group resolve the issues. He questioned if the $48 million TAM has for this project be, in fact, used to enhance the SMART project should the TAM Board not be able to reach consensus on a solution for the Greenbrae project. Commissioner Kinsey discussed the re-allocation process for unused RM2 funds, noting that the MTC will make that decision, whether to designate the money toward SMART or back into the general pool. He confirmed that SMART has approached MTC regarding the possibility of using unallocated RM2 funds and they have been told that they would be eligible provided the work has a nexus to the bridge. . He confirmed that the decision regarding what to do with the $48 million if it is not used in the Greenbrae corridor will not be TAM’s decision, but MTC’s. Commissioner Hillmer asked again whether the $48 million could be designated toward SMART if agreement can’t be reached on the Greenbrae project. Commissioner Kinsey explained that SMART would be eligible for the funds, and the TAM Board could write a letter on their behalf, but if not used on the Greenbrae project MTC would have control over the funds to use as they saw fit. Commissioner Condon expressed that she did not want to lose this opportunity to solve problems in the Greenbrae corridor. ED Steinhauser commented on discussions she has had with MTC staff regarding reallocation of the money to a project with an already approved environmental document, such as the SMART project to the platform in Larkspur, the parking garage in Larkspur for Golden Gate Ferry, or the Marin-Sonoma Narrows project. Commissioner Adams left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Chair Fredericks opened public comment on the item. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC), confirmed that the bike/ped proposals have many elements in common and there seems to be consensus on them among the bike groups. . He discussed the goals of the bike/ped projects, noting that the parking garage in Larkspur directly contradicts those goals and in fact will have a negative impact on greenhouse gases and would promote the use of single occupancy vehicles. He also noted that just because SMART is listed in the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) does not mean it has RTP funds available to the agency. Responding to a comment made by Mr. Peri, Chair Fredericks noted that the best way to make a parking garage option go away is to advocate for ferry connection shuttles in addition to bicycle projects. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item. At the request of the Chair, Commissioner Reed restated his motion which was to approve $86,000 for the next Working Group meeting with the provision that $30,000 is to be used at the discretion of the

Item 5a-1


Page 10 of 13

Working Group in a cost conscious manner. Commissioner Eklund reiterated her second. The motion passed by a vote of nine to four. 14. Marin Transit Update of Activity (Discussion) ED Steinhauser introduced the item, followed by a report by David Rzepinski, General Manager of Marin Transit. He presented an overview of local transit services, information on services provided in FY2012 (including ridership information), productivity standards, the FY2013-14 budget, fixed route structure, paratransit services, mobility management, the travel navigator program that launches next week, and a summary of Marin Transit programs and services. He also reviewed upcoming service route changes. Commissioner Hillmer asked about routes between Tiburon Boulevard and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Mr. Rzepinski confirmed that there were routes in the area, and he added that the routes he highlighted in the presentation were new or changed routes and were not intended to show every route. Commissioner Eklund asked if she could get a copy of the detailed Novato route map. She also asked about outreach to Novato residents that have not had a route in their neighborhood. Mr. Rzepinski clarified that there are no new routes in Novato. Commissioner Kinsey asked what Marin Transit has been doing to look into the possibility of clean fuel, which Mr. Rzepinski discussed. Commissioner Kinsey noted that climate change is a big piece of what MTC is planning to do with Plan Bay Area. Commissioner Fredericks asked about coordination of bus schedules with school schedules, particularly on ferry connector routes. Mr. Rzepinski indicated that the regular 219 route is supposed to coordinate with school schedules, but not necessarily for the 219F. Vice Chair Arnold noted that every rider on every route was interviewed as part of the transit needs assessment. She expressed appreciation to Marin Transit for their work. 15. Allocation of Funds to Marin Transit

a. Allocate Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Funds to Marin Transit and Amend Strategic Plan to Allow for Advanced Payments (Action)

Commissioner Kinsey moved to approve allocation of Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Funds in the amount of $11,980,623 to Marin Transit. Commissioner Moulton-Peters seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

b. Allocation of Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee) Funds to Marin Transit for Element

2 of the Strategic Plan (Action)

Commissioner Sears moved to approve allocation of Measure B VRF funds to Marin Transit. Vice Chair Arnold seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Item 5a-1


Page 11 of 13

16. Employer/Employee Commute Survey Report and Follow-up (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Planning Manager Linda Jackson, Associate Transportation Planner Scott McDonald, and Rob Eyler with the Marin Economic Forum (MEF). Ms. Jackson also introduced TDM Coordinator Rick Ruvolo. This item recommended that the TAM Board: A) Accept the combined survey and reports “The Marin Commuter: Commute Survey and Focus

Group Report.” B) Adopt staff’s recommendation for an expanded Employer/Employee program in the coming

fiscal year to include the following: 1) Approve expanded outreach as part of a countywide campaign to encourage telecommuting

along with transit, carpooling, vanpooling and other commute alternatives to driving alone. This work would support employers and building managers through promotion, the distribution of the TDM Tool Kit, and coordination activities with transit agencies and 511.org.

2) Staff is also proposing issuing an RFQ or similar process to solicit proposals from car share vendors in order to explore additional mid-day mobility options for commuters who use transit and other commute alternatives to get to and from work. Staff will return to the TAM Board regarding a recommendation for car share.

C) Confirm FY 2013-14 budget elements for TAM’s TDM Program under the VRF: 1) $130,000 for the continuation of existing activities to include ERH, Vanpool Incentive

Program, bike share outreach, 511.org carpool coordination and staff support. 2) $20,000 for enhanced and targeted outreach to include working with the employers and

building managers through promotion and distribution of a TDM Tool Kit, and coordination activities with transit agencies and 511.org.

3) $70,000 for a potential car share effort: This would be subject to identifying a program model, vendor, and returning to the TAM Board for final TAM Board approval.

Ms. Jackson commented on the needs of employers and employees in regard to employment and transportation, surveys, focus groups and a recent partnership with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Leadership Institute. Scott McDonald presented an overview of the process, employee surveys, results from employer focus groups, the combined report, and the commuter toolkit. Dr. Eyler discussed his role in the process and key findings in the report, including challenges & opportunities, commuter attitudes, knowledge of options, behaviors, modes of employee transportation, shifting behavior, and recommendations. Rick Ruvulo expressed appreciation for the strategic partnership with 511.org, especially 511 Marin rep Christy Garland. He also gave an overview of TAM’s TDM program, including the vanpool incentive program, the emergency ride home program, Safe Routes, outreach events, a dynamic rideshare program (We Go Marin), bikesharing, strategic promotion/education, telecommuting, targeted campaigns, IRS commuter choice incentives, and expanding mobility options, including close coordination with Marin Transit.. Mr. McDonald discussed funding requests under the FY2013-14 budget and staff recommendations.

Item 5a-1


Page 12 of 13

Chair Fredericks asked for clarification on Item C3 of the staff recommendation, and ED Steinhauser explained that staff is recommending that action be put on hold until after more information is brought about the potential use of zip cars. Commissioner Condon commented on work that Mr. Ruvulo did in San Francisco in the past that created a complete paradigm shift in regards to commute alternatives and to that end, she urged the Commission support the recommendation which will surely bring about change in this county. Commissioner Sears asked if there is any part of the TDM program that involves making people aware of bus transit options. Mr. Ruvulo agreed that was a vital part of the program and indicated they work closely with Marin Transit to promote its services. Mr. McDonald discussed recent specific efforts at the San Rafael Corporate Center that began with a presentation by Marin Transit regarding those transit options. Ms. Jackson noted that the TDM program promotes bus ridership also with the first mile-last mile services connecting bus riders with their final destinations. Commissioner Eklund asked about outreach to Hamilton Landing and whether 2K had been contacted, as they have 400 employees. She also asked about the Hamilton shuttle. She commented that they should also reach out to businesses outside of the Chambers of Commerce, as not all businesses are members. She suggested outreach through realtors and through business license information. Commissioner Phillips commended individuals from the San Rafael Leadership Institute for their work on the toolkit. He moved to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner Eklund seconded the motion. Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on the item with no speakers coming forward. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Item 18 taken out of order. 18. Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Fund Allocation to Marin County for the Sir Francis

Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project in Ross Valley (Action) David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation, presented the staff report which recommended that the TAM Board allocate $800,000 in TST funds to Marin County for the preliminary engineering phase of the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project in the Ross Valley Planning Area.

He discussed details of the Rehabilitation Project, as well as funding priorities and the two segregated requests. He indicated that Craig Tackabery is present from the county if there are any questions. Commissioner Kinsey moved to approve the allocation. Commissioner Hillmer seconded the motion. Vice Chair Arnold asked Mr. Tackabery if the county was okay with the proposal. He said yes, for now, although when it comes time to bid the project they might want to combine the two phases into one project. Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on the item with no speakers coming forward. The Board unanimously approved the motion for allocation of funds. 17. Approve FY 2013-2014 Measure B Electric Vehicle Program (Action)

Item 5a-1


Page 13 of 13

Senior Transportation Planner Suzanne Loosen presented the staff report which recommended that the TAM Board accept the staff report and recommendation for the FY 2013-2014 EV Program, reviewing the program recommendations that had earlier been presented and approved with minor changes by the Executive Committee. She also discussed the proposed Public Agency EV Fleet Incentive Program, a Public EV Infrastructure Buildout and targeted locations, proposed outreach/education, and recommendation for a one-time EV Fleet Grant Backfill for the Marin Municipal Water District. Commissioner Eklund moved to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner Sears seconded the motion. Commissioner Sears asked about any impediments to introducing more of the Level 3 chargers (fast chargers) – Ms. Loosen discussed the cost differential between chargers citing costs for Level 2, in the range of $5,000-$20,000 and Level 3, up to $100,000. Commissioner Kinsey asked for information on what is happening statewide and regionally with the fast charger initiatives, which Ms. Loosen discussed. Commissioner Moulton-Peters recommended promoting a map with locations of the chargers through visitor centers, etc. Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on the item with no speakers coming forward. The motion to approve carried unanimously by the Board. 20. Open time for items not on the agenda Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Approved on:

Item 5a-1

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JULY 23, 2013

4:00 PM

ROOM 330 MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER

3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 2

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Alice Fredericks, Chair, Tiburon Town Council Dan Hillmer, Larkspur City Council

Diane Furst, Corte Madera Town Council Eric Lucan, Novato City Council Gary Phillips, San Rafael City Council Judy Arnold, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors P. Beach Kuhl, Ross Town Council

Renee Goddard, Fairfax Town Council (Alternate) Steve Kinsey, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Members Absent: Ford Greene, San Anselmo Town Council Herb Weiner, Sausalito City Council John Reed, Fairfax Town Council Kathrin Sears, Marin County Board of Supervisors Sandra Donnell, Belvedere City Council Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Mill Valley City Council

Susan Adams, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Staff Members Present Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Chair Alice Fredericks called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. 1. Convene in Open Session Executive Director Dianne Steinhauser noted that the first item will be to swear in new member, Renee Goddard, alternate from Fairfax. ED Steinhauser administered the oath of office. The Board then adjourned to Closed Session.

Item 5a - 2

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN TAM July 23, 2013

Page 2 of 2

2. Adjourn to Closed Session Discuss Executive Director’s Annual Evaluation of Performance Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)

3. Reconvene in Open Session Announcement from Closed Session Chair Fredericks reconvened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. with all members present as indicated. She stated that a Closed Session was held, with nothing to report. 4. Open time for items not on the agenda Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Approved on:

Item 5a - 2

MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

TAM

JULY 25, 2013 7:00 PM

ROOM 330

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 14

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Alice Fredericks, Tiburon Town Council, TAM Chair

Carla Condon, Corte Madera Town Council, (Alternate) Dan Hillmer, Larkspur City Council Eric Lucan, Novato City Council

Gary Phillips, San Rafael City Council John Reed, Fairfax Town Council Judy Arnold, Marin County Board of Supervisors, TAM Vice Chair

Kathrin Sears, Marin County Board of Supervisors Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors P. Beach Kuhl, Ross Town Council

Sandra Donnell, Belvedere City Council Steve Kinsey, Marin County Board of Supervisors Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Mill Valley City Council

Susan Adams, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Members Absent: Diane Furst, Town of Corte Madera Ford Greene, San Anselmo Town Council Herb Weiner, Sausalito City Council Staff Members Present Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director

Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation

Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer Linda Jackson, Planning Manager

Suzanne Loosen, Transportation Planner Scott McDonald, Associate Transportation Planner

Chair Alice Fredericks called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 1. Chair’s Report Chair Fredericks discussed the consensus reached on a recommendation of the Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group (GCAWG) regarding the southbound options for the project. She also expressed thanks and complimented the god work of the adhoc Sustainable Communities Strategy Committee, as their work is finished now that Plan Bay Area has been adopted. With the SCS Ad Hoc

Item 5a-3


Page 2 of 14

being terminated, she expressed optimism that staff will keep the Board informed, along with local jurisdiction staff, regarding implementation of Plan Bay Area. 2. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion)

Commissioner Hillmer reiterated earlier concerns he had expressed regarding efforts to streamline CEQA, as in the work of Plan Bay Area. He asked if there was a way for the city attorneys to get together and develop a common position regarding ways to ensure that local land use control continues, especially with regard to transit priority projects. He noted that the city attorney for Larkspur is following the issue closely, and he encouraged other jurisdictions to do the same, either independently or together. He clarified that he was supportive of the goals of Plan Bay Area, but it was the implementation that was concerning to him at the local level. Commissioner Hillmer also referenced some material he had provided to TAM staff regarding an opinion piece he and Mayor Phillips had published in the Marin Independent Journal regarding the Greenbrae Corridor project and ten reasons he thought SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit) should be completed now. Chair Fredericks noted that the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers was also very interested in the issue of CEQA and local control and would be tracking that legislation closely as well. Commissioner Rice said that as an ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) representative, she would be closely following CEQA reform issues, not just from Plan Bay Area but also proposed state legislation. Commissioner Adams indicated there has been much discussion at the California State Association with regard to proposed state legislation related to CEQA reform. She thought it was an issue that TAM’s lobbyists should be well aware of as well. She also asked that items 5c, 5f, and 5j be removed from the Consent Calendar for questions. 3. Executive Director's Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser reported on a meeting she attended in Sacramento on behalf of the Self-Help County Coalition, a statewide 20-member organization formed to raise awareness of transportation funding issues. She also made a brief presentation on three recent requests to TAM for release of public records regarding the Greenbrae Corridor Improvement project. She expressed to the Board that all of TAM’s records are available for release to the public, particularly expense records on this project or any other project. She noted that the request by Dick Spotswood is focused on costs for the environmental review process, and she reviewed cost comparisons for those costs on this project and other recent projects in the Bay Area, as well as the project scopes. The Greenbrae project costs were well in line with other projects of similar size and scope. She pointed out as well that much of the details for environmental review are mandated by state law, with California having some of the strictest environmental laws and practices in the nation. The cost of infrastructure planning and permitting under California environmental laws is largely unavoidable. Commissioner Condon discussed the response to her public records request, which she received more than 10 days past the timeline required by state law, and asked about the cost for correction of the data released by the consultant, particularly where the cost was shifted to, since it was not billed to the Working Group expenses. ED Steinhauser introduced Project Manager Bill Whitney, who explained that the consultant did not charge for correction of the error. Staff also noted that information for up to

Item 5a-3


Page 3 of 14

date costs of the working group effort as requested by Commissioner Condon had to be gathered from the consultant teams, resulting in a slight delay in delivery. Commissioner Adams asked whether the costs shown for environmental review also includes design, engineering and public outreach. She suggested that any future presentations have the costs broken down further. ED Steinhauser confirmed that the environmental review includes everything from pre-planning to completion of the document, but she agreed that further details might be helpful in understanding the cost. Commissioner Moulton-Peters asked for clarification about the Safe Routes Call for Projects and whether there was a requirement that the proposals had to be linked to transit. ED Steinhauser clarified that these applications were for Safe Routes to Transit funds from Regional Measure 2. She added that staff would be glad to work with local agencies to see if there are other projects that might be eligible for this program. 4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. Executive Committee

Commissioner Moulton-Peters discussed Item 5i, the Crossing Guards Assessment Report, which had been reviewed by the Executive Committee who recommended it for acceptance. She briefly commented on the extent of the assessment, input by parents and students, and public awareness of the program.

b. SMART

Vice Chair Arnold indicated that a written report was included in the Board packets, and she had nothing further to present. Commissioner Adams noted that she and Commissioner Kinsey were working in a subcommittee on a pathway for Civic Center Drive. She indicated that one issue that has come up centers around what SMART is going to do about the drop-off and ADA parking availability. She asked the SMART representatives to provide, at least, the conceptual information so the planning process can continue. Vice Chair Arnold said she had passed on to the General Manager the request for a presentation before the TAM Board.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action)

a. Approve TAM Board Special Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2013 b. Advancement of Safe Pathways Funds c. Amend TAM’s Investment Policy and Authorize Staff to Invest in CalTRUST d. Appointment to the TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee e. Approval of Amendment 1 with American Guard Services to provide Crossing Guard

Services for the 2013/2014 School Year f. Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvement Project – Additional Studies of

Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements g. Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Reserved Funds Allocation to Marin County for the Sir

Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation Project

Item 5a-3


Page 4 of 14

h. Approval of Amendment 1 with Novato Unified School District to provide Crossing Guard Services for the 2013/2014 School Year

i. Accept Crossing Guard Assessment Report j. Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvement Project – Amendment to

Contract with Jacobs Engineering Items b, c, f and j were pulled for questions/comments. Regarding Item 5g, Commissioner Reed commented on a change he requested for enlarging the bike lanes on the plans, and he noted that the latest plans still show the smaller bike lanes. He noted, however, that he spoke to Commissioner Kinsey, who assured him that the final plans would show 10.5’ bike lanes. ED Steinhauser added that there is a letter from the Department of Public Works in the Board packets, which commits to the larger sized bike lanes. Regarding Item 5a, Commissioner Donnell noted that she was in attendance at the meeting, as was Commissioner Rice, but both are listed in the minutes as absent. Commissioner Condon said she was listed as present and Commissioner Furst as absent, which needs to be switched. Commissioner Kinsey responded to Commissioner Reed’s remarks, discussing the goal of “complete streets” within and across jurisdictions. He asked ED Steinhauser what checks and balances are in place to ensure that the planned design of a project is as it was proposed. ED Steinhauser indicated that when the first Measure A Strategic Plan was adopted in 2005-6, it was decided that under the Major Roads Category, TAM would delegate to the local jurisdictions to decide what they thought were the best features to be included in the project. She noted that staff would look at the process and policies to see if there is more that TAM can do to insure that projects are built according to specifications. Commissioner Kinsey suggested bringing the issue to the Public Works Association, and he expressed appreciation for ED Steinhauser’s commitment to follow through on the issue. He commented on the effect that roadway improvements have on traffic speeds and the fact that wider lanes could ensure safety for all concerned. Chair Fredericks noted that Item 5g has effectively been pulled off the Consent Calendar by the extensive discussion. She opened public comment on the item. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC), reported that he has had multiple field visits on Sir Francis Drake with Public Works staff, as well as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), since phase 1 was completed. He indicated that MCBC is satisfied with the changes that have been made, and that discussions about phase 2 have included identification of places where the lanes can also be increased. He also discussed the complete streets requirement that applies now to jurisdictions receiving OBAG funds (One Bay Area Grant), and the resulting implications. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item. Commissioner Hillmer moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items b, c, f and j. Commissioner Condon seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Regarding Item 5b, ED Steinhauser explained the purpose of the funding allocation is to improve a crosswalk on Hwy 1 at Pinehill Road in Tam Valley, and she discussed the change in the allocation recommended by staff from the amount presented to the Executive Committee.

Item 5a-3


Page 5 of 14

Commissioner Sears commented on the urgency of the item, arising from a series of close encounters between cars and children on bicycles. She expressed appreciation to ED Steinhauser for responding quickly to the concerns of the public and working with Caltrans to develop a solution. Commissioner Sears moved to approve Item b of the Consent Calendar, and Commissioner Kinsey seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. Regarding Item 5c, Commissioner Adams asked how the change in investment would take place – whether the full amount proposed would be transferred all at once or in smaller amounts over time to gauge the success rate. Chief Financial Officer Li Zhang confirmed that money would be moved in phases. She explained details of the proposed phased approach, monitoring and reports that will presented to the Board. Commissioner Adams asked the timeline for the change, and Ms. Zhang said it was totally up to TAM, depending on the comfort level of the Board. ED Steinhauser added that the County is handling this for TAM and fully recommends the services of CalTRUST. She indicated a report could be brought back to the Board with further details if desired. Commissioner Adams moved to approve Item c of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Arnold seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Regarding Item 5f, ED Steinhauser discussed a memo included in the supplemental Board packet which had a revised recommendation to the Board to: (1) authorize a portion of the previously authorized $86,000 budget, or $30,000, be re-directed to conduct technical studies of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Greenbrae Corridor and (2) authorize an additional $22,500 to support the request by the Working Group for addition meetings and further study of the new MDB northbound improvement proposal. She noted that the MDB latest proposal was presented on July 19th and the Working Group requested it be considered carefully. . She noted that at its latest meeting, the GCAWG had come to unanimous agreement on several features of the southbound design options. She indicated that staff recommends approval of the funding request Commissioner Hillmer asked that the action on this item be divided into two parts, as detailed in the supplemental report. He clarified that although the Group had reached agreement on the further study of the southbound options, some of those options might necessitate an additional two years of environmental review. While acknowledging the creativity being displayed in the many options proposed by the public, he expressed concern about Caltrans and TAM staff meeting and negotiating with Marin Deserves Better outside of the Working Group meetings and making a recommendation to the Board related to information presented only to Caltrans and TAM staff at this point and not to the Group as a whole, which is why he asked for the item to be split into two actions. He stated that he asked the Mayor of Corte Madera if the Marin Deserves Better and the Town of Corte Madera could be considered the same and she responded affirmatively. He went on to say that he has not seen any action from the Town indicating that. He was also confused as to which options have been proposed by representatives from the Town of Corte Madera, noting that the Town Manager has presented his own ideas separate from those put forth officially (although he did so on official stationary). He asked for clarification on the issues. He indicated he was hesitant to assign funds until he receives clarification as to what appears to be a parallel process. ED Steinhauser explained that the meetings with Caltrans, TAM staff and Marin Deserves Better were a direct request from the Working Group at the July 8th meeting, for further analysis of two options northbound and two options southbound – to determine what was feasible and what would work for Caltrans. She added that there is not a parallel process taking place and she invited the Working

Item 5a-3


Page 6 of 14

Group Members to attend any of the engineering meetings with Caltrans on the public proposals. Commissioner Hillmer clarified that he was referring to the study of the second proposal by Marin Deserves Better, details of which were not discussed at the Working Group meeting at all, much less recommended for further study. Commissioner Condon disagreed with Commissioner Hillmer, noting that she had specifically asked whether the technical team behind Marin Deserves Better could meet further with TAM staff and Caltrans to further refine their proposal to accommodate Caltrans’ concerns. She also indicated that the Corte Madera Town Council had expressed by resolution their support for the proposals submitted by Marin Deserves Better. She added that the Council tacitly supported the Bracken proposal and she confirmed that Mr. Bracken’s plan was worked on outside of business hours. Commissioner Phillips agreed there seems to be some confusion about what happened at the last GCAWG meeting. He expressed concern about the time constraints facing the Group, and he indicated that if staff believes the new or revised proposal has some merit he would support the additional funding so that the process could move forward. Commissioner Lucan said he supported Commissioner Hillmer’s request to split the item into two actions, as he had expressed concern with the last request for funds and had decided for himself that was his “line in the sand” so he would not be in favor of the additional funding. Commissioner Rice indicated she agreed that the Working Group had approved the additional technical analysis by Caltrans and TAM staff and meetings with Marin Deserves Better to answer specific questions about the northbound and southbound options. She thought it important to let that continue even outside the Group, in view of the time constraints involved. She felt that the meetings had been productive in refining the southbound options, and she supported the additional funds to allow the process to continue related to the northbound options. Commissioner Kinsey asked about the $30,000 and what staff wanted to study further related to the bike/ped improvement. ED Steinhauser explained the six different improvements recommended by the Working Group. Commissioner Kinsey asked whether TAM would seek reimbursement of the costs under Regional Measure 2 (RM2) and if staff felt that the costs would be eligible for that reimbursement. ED Steinhauser said yes in response to both questions. Commissioner Kinsey asked if SMART has given any indication whether they would support the study of the proposed changes along the railroad right-of-way. ED Steinhauser said a member of the Working Group, Mayor Gary Phillips of San Rafael, had said he would check with SMART and report back. Commissioner Hillmer said he has asked SMART but has not received an answer yet; he was waiting for a SMART meeting to raise the issue directly. Vice Chair Arnold said she supports the separation of the item into two actions. She commented on the importance of bike/ped improvements for this project, and the importance of extending the SMART line to the Larkspur Ferry. She suggested that using funding currently allocated for the Greenbrae project on SMART would allow the train to reach the ferry and be a complete regional transportation system. . She was also concerned about the pressure to finish the design stage within the next two months and the funding at stake. Commissioner Rice asked how much funding is available at this point. ED Steinhauser explained that $143 million was recommended and reserved in the long-range Regional Transportation Plan but only $40 million of that larger amount is immediately available from RM2 toll funds from MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission), funds ready and available to TAM. Commissioner Rice urged support of

Item 5a-3


Page 7 of 14

the full recommendation made by staff, commenting on the importance of this project to provide much-needed relief from existing congestion. She noted that this funding was intended to relieve congestion in this project area and she thought it would be wrong for the Board to not support the Working Group in its attempt to reach consensus on a recommendation just so the funding at stake can be allocated for other projects. Commissioner Hillmer clarified that his concern had been with the additional funding request to study something that he thought the Working Group had not approved. He was not debating the importance of the project or the congestion relief it will provide. Commissioner Condon discussed a project in Larkspur that will generate additional traffic on city streets in Corte Madera, as well as a proposed new apartment/multi-use complex in Corte Madera that will add traffic as well. She noted that one of the goals of the Greenbrae Corridor project was to mitigate surface street traffic as well as Highway 101 traffic congestion and that it would be a travesty if this Board did not make full use of funding intended for this project. Commissioner Phillips said he was not proposing abandonment of the project. He was concerned, however, that a decision needs to be made soon regarding the allocation of the funds, and he would rather allocate the $40 million to SMART as a connector project than lose it altogether if the issues cannot be resolved soon enough. Chair Fredericks opened public comment on the item. Cindy Winter discussed the importance of TAM issuing a Request for Proposals for bike/ped improvements as soon as possible, since selection and implementation can take some time. She asked about the criteria for the projects and the process that will be followed. Chair Fredericks clarified that the item currently under consideration was Item 5f, funding for the Working Group process, but Ms. Winter could address the Board under Open Time later in the meeting. Ms. Winter said she supports funding the Working Group. Barry Taranto commented on Item 5f and 5j together and he indicated he attended a couple of the Working Group meetings and thought TAM is wasting its money on technical consultants when the Caltrans engineer is at every meeting, at no cost, and really wants to resolve the issues. He also urged the Board to move forward with the process as expeditiously as possible and to keep the press informed on the progress that is being made. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, noted that since there will be no Board meeting in August, this is the last time to consider the $30,000 allocation toward bike/ped improvements for the project. He noted that there has already been money spent on considering the road portion of the project, and the bike/ped options need to be studied as well. Peter Chase, Marin Deserves Better, expressed appreciation for the meetings with Caltrans and TAM staff. He urged the Board not to cut the funding at this point in the process when so much is at stake, and resolution of the issues is so close. Liz Schott, Superintendent of Kentfield School District, asked for a change to the agenda to allow the students present to see their crossing guard receive his award. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item.

Item 5a-3


Page 8 of 14

Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve authorizing the use of the already-approved $30,000 to study bike/ped options, and Commissioner Sears seconded the motion. It was approved with one no vote by Commissioner Adams. Commissioner Kinsey moved to approve allocation of an additional $22,500 for further work in support of the Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group. Commissioner Rice seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 4 (Commissioners Adams, Hillmer, Lucan, and Vice Chair Arnold voted no). Commissioner Hillmer clarified that he voted against the second motion only because the Working Group had not authorized the request. Commissioner Adams asked, and ED Steinhauser confirmed that the Caltrans engineer was not costing TAM any money. Commissioner Adams said she voted no because she thought the Caltrans representative could provide the necessary expertise, and further funding of consultants was unnecessary. ED Steinhauser clarified that Caltrans will not meet with Marin Deserves Better unless the TAM consultant team is present. Commissioner Hillmer questioned whether Caltrans would meet without the consultants if it was done at the regular Working Group meeting rather than outside the Working Group process. Chair Fredericks suggested he pursue the issue with staff separately after the meeting. Item 7 taken out of order. 7. Presentation of Crossing Guard of the Year (Action) Commissioner Rice invited Owen and Declan and their mother to come forward to present the award to Mr. John Chaney, crossing guard at the intersection of Laurel Grove and Sir Francis Drake for the last six years. She also asked Alan Stone and Lynn Menard of American Guard Services (AGS) and Kentfield School Superintendent Liz Schott to come up as well. Ms. Schott and Mr. Chaney recounted the story of his heroism in saving the two boys from a speeding car that he saw coming towards them. Commissioner Rice expressed appreciation to American Guard Services for their continuing excellent service to the schools. ED Steinhauser said TAM is very proud of the first recipient of the Crossing Guard of the Year award. 5. Consent Calendar (Action), The TAM board returned to discussion of the Consent Calendar ED Steinhauser stated that Item 5j was necessary to increase the amount of the contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, to fund the amounts authorized by the Board’s approval of Item 5f. Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on Item 5j with no speakers coming forward. Commissioner Moulton-Peters moved to approve Item 5j of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Donnell seconded the motion, which was approved by a vote of 10 to 4 (Commissioners Adams, Hillmer, Lucan, and Vice Chair Arnold voted no).

Item 5a-3


Page 9 of 14

6. Caltrans Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser indicated that a written report was included in the supplemental Board packet. She also expressed appreciation to the Boardmembers who have been working with her to resolve issues with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) on relocating utilities for the Marin Sonoma Narrows project. She indicated that unfortunately, PG&E has not found a solution yet to the $15.5 million of utility work on the Redwood Landfill Interchange with respect to Buy America. She noted, however, that Caltrans may have come up with a way to move funds around so that federal funding is not being used for the utility work. She indicated she would report back to the Board once it is confirmed. 8. Request from GGBHTD for Ferry Connector Bus Funding (Action) ED Steinhauser presented this item which recommended that the TAM Board support the allocation of $85,000 in Transportation Sales Tax funds for the nine month ferry connector pilot, matched by an equal or greater amount of funds from Golden Gate, with certain conditions. She introduced Denis Mulligan, General Manager for Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transit District; and David Rzepinski, General Manager for Marin Transit. Mr. Mulligan discussed the Strategic Plan for Ferry Connector Service and other improvements at the Larkspur Ferry, including the growing demand for ferry service, reduction in traffic on Highway 101 as a result, survey of the ferry users, and the proposal itself. Commissioner Rice asked if there is a parking charge element for parking at the ferry terminal and if so, how those funds will be applied. Mr. Mulligan said yes, but that will not be part of the shuttle pilot program funding. . He then discussed how the GGBHTD Board proposed the program to operate, the proposed parking fee amount, and the public outreach process regarding implementation of the fees. Commissioner Rice asked whether those fees could also be used to offset the cost of the shuttle, since there is a nexus between the two. She indicated she was supportive of the shuttle concept, but there are questions to be answered through the implementation process. She commented on the benefit to the District from the ferry use as well as the benefit to the users. Mr. Mulligan noted that there will be one ferry trip added, too. He also expressed willingness to report back to the Board as implementation of the service goes along. Commissioner Adams agreed that anything that gets people out of their cars was a good thing. She was concerned about using Measure A money that is supposed to be allocated for Marin Transit needs, and she thought it important to clarify who will be responsible for the program as it continues if it proves a successful program. She suggested looking at existing routes to see whether there is a way to incorporate stops at the ferry terminal for best efficiency of service, as well as considering how the two transit districts can coordinate services. She expressed her support for the concept. Vice Chair Arnold asked whether TAM had consulted counsel to determine if there is any problem with Measure A funds going to Golden Gate District, as opposed to a pass-through with Marin Transit. ED Steinhauser said yes, and a copy of their opinion in the affirmative was included in the Board packet. Commissioner Kinsey thanked Mr. Mulligan for his attendance and for bringing the proposal forward. He indicated his strong support for the use of ferries as a way to move people in and out of San Francisco. He commented on the preciousness of Measure A funds, and he noted that this will be the first time TAM has sent any Measure A funds to a regional transit provider. He observed that in the Expenditure Plan, “restoring ferry connector service” is characterized as a local transit investment , he

Item 5a-3


Page 10 of 14

believes, and listed as a possible priority project, to be incorporated through a public process and then incorporated as part of a short-range transit plan. He recommended that performance-based criteria be used through the pilot program. In order to allow the process to move forward in a timely fashion, he suggested TAM give the money to Marin Transit, who would pass the funds through to Golden Gate Transit with no funds kept by Marin Transit and without conditions attached. Mr. Mulligan said he preferred to get the money directly from TAM, but he would be willing to proceed in the manner proposed by Commissioner Kinsey if the Board prefers that. In response to a question from staff, Commissioner Kinsey said he recommended that the money come from the sales tax interest fund category rather than the sales tax transit fund category. Commissioner Sears said she supported using Measure A funds in ways that directly benefit transit for Marin residents, which is exactly what the shuttle will do. She commented on the discussion at the Golden Gate Transit Board meeting regarding who will be the users of the service, and she noted that the survey was very informative about the needs and wants of the users. She expressed optimism about the program and about the benefits that will accrue to Marin residents. She indicated she supported sending the funds directly to Golden Gate. Vice Chair Arnold said she was also very supportive of allocating the $85,000 to the Golden Gate District, and she thought TAM should stay in charge of the funds and give them directly to Golden Gate, not as a passthrough – at least during the trial period. Following the initial period and evaluation, the Board could then consider whether Marin Transit might take over as a passthrough agency. . Chair Fredericks expressed agreement with Vice Chair Arnold and Commissioner Sears, and she was confident that the data that is collected will be very helpful in deciding how the program should be handled in the future. Commissioner Moulton-Peters said she was supportive of the shuttle but would rather use Marin Transit as a passthrough, adding that it would be better to give the service to Marin Transit ultimately, given their cost-saving measures. Commissioner Adams indicated she agreed with Commissioners Kinsey and Moulton-Peters that the passthrough option would be a better way to maintain control of the funding and would be more in keeping with the goals of Measure A to improve local transit options. She also thought Marin Transit could track and analyze the program and report back to the Board for further evaluation and consideration. She expressed hope that there might be ways that the ferry shuttle service could be incorporated into existing Marin Transit routes, and that other cost efficiencies could be found. Commissioner Lucan observed that there were two possible funding sources and two possible allocation methods; he thought perhaps splitting the discussion into two parts would be helpful in making a determination. ED Steinhauser reviewed the options for funding sources and the allocation methods. Commissioner Rice expressed support for using Marin Transit as a passthrough agency during the nine-month pilot program; after that it could be reconsidered and changed if necessary. There was discussion regarding the short-range transit plan and whether Marin Transit would be able to complete one in time, if TAM was to require one. Commissioner Kinsey said that the Measure A Expenditure Plan specifically says local transit services need to be identified as part of a short-range

Item 5a-3


Page 11 of 14

transit plan to qualify for Measure A funding, but he indicated that could occur after the pilot program has been completed and the funding source decided for long-term shuttle service. Chair Fredericks expressed confusion as to whether the shuttle would be considered a local or regional service. ED Steinhauser noted that in conversations she has had with the two transit agency managers, they understood this to be a regional connector service to a regional ferry. Chair Fredericks acknowledged that detail could be resolved after the pilot program and its evaluation are complete. Commissioner Sears clarified that it would be a local connector service to a regional ferry. Commissioner Kinsey referred to the Measure A Expenditure Plan under the section, “Maintain and Expand Local Bus Transit Service”, where it specifically identifies restoring local community shuttles to the ferry as eligible for funds – even the use of community-sized, smaller busses. Mr. Mulligan confirmed 30’ buses would be used, not the standard 45’ ones. Mr. Rzepinski recognized the work of the Executive Director in working with both agencies to pull together the necessary information to have this discussion, as well as the well-written staff report that includes input from both agencies. He acknowledged the importance of the shuttle to the ferry terminal as ridership on the ferry has increased. He reviewed the two funding options and clarified the differences between the two – he expressed preference for the use of interest revenue funds instead of Strategy 1 Transit funds. He also indicated Marin Transit’s willingness to support the pilot program jointly with Golden Gate Transit. Commissioner Donnell noted that the current policy regarding interest funds is that they will be used for bike and pedestrian pathway maintenance; she asked, and ED Steinhauser agreed that an amendment to the policy could be considered. Chair Fredericks added that this would be a one-time policy change. She expressed appreciation for the two transit agencies working together so well. Chair Fredericks opened public comment on the item. David Schonbrunn said he was pleased to see this item on the agenda, a concept that he has been working towards for over ten years. He was confident that the issue of how the funds are dedicated is a minor one that can be easily decided, and he added that once SMART comes to the area there will be many more riders for the shuttle service. He explained that the distribution of passengers throughout the Ross Valley makes it obvious to him that the shuttle service should be handled by Marin Transit. He also reviewed questions that should be considered in the process, such as labor law issues, development of a funding formula including parking charges, and adequate evaluation of the shuttle after it gets started (preferably after the implementation of paid parking for best results). Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item. Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve allocation of $85,000 in Measure A interest funds for the nine-month pilot program, with TAM being the entity in charge of giving the funds directly to Golden Gate Transit. Commissioner Sears seconded the motion. Commissioner Adams proposed a substitute motion, that the $85,000 in Measure A interest funds be passed through Marin Transit, with no administrative costs and no conditions. Commissioner Moulton-

Item 5a-3


Page 12 of 14

Peters seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 12 to 2 (Vice Chair Arnold and Commissioner Sears voted no). Chair Fredericks thanked the Mr. Mulligan and Mr. Rzepinski for the help and information in the process. 9. Safe Routes to Schools Program Update 2013-14 (Discussion) ED Steinhauser initiated the presentation. She introduced Dave Parisi from Parisi Associates and Wendi Kallins from Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC), who manages the program. Mr. Parisi began with a discussion of the five components of the program: education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering and evaluation, followed by the funding constraints, and program administration. Ms. Kallins continued the presentation providing information about schools served, curriculum, materials, grant programs, International Walk to School Day, National Bike to School Day, Go for the Green Challenge, and volunteer support for school champions, teen clubs, SchoolPool website, Active4.me, trip tracking, Countywide SchoolPool Neighborhood Program, and the teen Distracted Driving Program, and Weekly Walk & Roll Wednesdays. Mr. Parisi explained the enforcement component, including support for the Crossing Guard Program and Street Smarts. Ms. Kallins reviewed neighborhood transportation task forces, complex issues unique to high schools, and a proposed media plan. Mr. Parisi summarized elements of the engineering component, including walking and bike audits, engineering concept plans, infrastructure funding, status of existing projects, suggested route maps, corridor plans, and engineering requests for low-cost improvement plans. He gave a brief recap of parent and classroom surveys that are conducted. Ms. Kallins commented on other evaluation tools including report cards given to each school which describes programs they are using. She noted that 28 schools achieved Green School Status this year Mr. Parisi concluded with a discussion of the overall program evaluation conducted every three to five years, and Ms. Kallins discussed goals and plans for institutionalization of the program whereby a culture is developed centering around walking and biking to school. ED Steinhauser briefly explained that this report is usually given in the summer and the importance of reinforcing the concepts at the beginning of each school year. She also reported on an application to the Marin County Board of Supervisors for Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program excess funds for continuation and expansion of the Street Smarts program. Finally, she noted that TAM received a $633,000 grant from MTC eligible for this year and the next two years in support of some of the programs described herein as well as others that staff will be bringing forward at a future meeting. She pointed out a pie chart in the staff report that shows how much TAM has been able to capture in federal funds thus far ($3,521,599) for the Safe Routes program. She also reviewed the status of Safe Routes funding at the federal and state levels. Commissioner Condon noted that in Corte Madera there is the Bay Trail along Santa Clemente Drive, which is a good trail but it ends abruptly at Paradise Drive. She discussed four schools (three existing and one new one opening next year) located in the same area, and she pointed out none of those

Item 5a-3


Page 13 of 14

students will be able to walk or bike to school because of gaps in the trail. She asked that finishing that trail be put on a list of projects to be developed. Commissioner Donnell commented on bi-weekly meetings held in Tiburon regarding the Safe Routes program, and the dedication and support shown by Ms. Kallins who attended almost every meeting for over a year and a half. Commissioner Kinsey expressed appreciation to Mr. Parisi and Ms. Kallins for the presentation, and he said he thought Marin has one of the most outstanding Safe Routes programs in the nation, which he thought should be recognized as a model for other jurisdictions to follow. He commented on the importance of the sales tax funds that the voters approved for the program, especially given that federal support of the program is ending, and state funding is also facing changes. He also expressed appreciation to staff for their hard work. 10. Allocation of TFCA and TDA Article 3 Funds (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Associate Transportation Planner Scott McDonald and Programming & Transportation Manager Dave Chan to present the staff report recommending that the TAM Board: 1) adopt Project Priorities as shown in in the staff report for the 2013 Multi-Fund Call for Projects, 2) programming TFCA and TDA Article 3 funds, and 3) authorize the Executive Director to adjust TFCA funding amounts as necessitated by the Air District’s final determination on TFCA cost-effectiveness. Mr. McDonald discussed the available funding from each funding source, call for projects issued by TAM, eight applications received, evaluation criteria used, staff’s recommendations for funding of six of those projects, reasoning behind the recommendations, support for the staff recommendations from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and information presented to the Public Works Directors with no comments received back. Chair Fredericks opened and closed public comment on the item with no speakers coming forward. Commissioner Moulton-Peters moved to approve the staff recommendation for adoption of project priorities, programming of TFCA and TDA Article 3 funds, and authorizing the Executive Director to adjust TFCA funding amounts as necessitated by the Air District’s final determination on TFCA cost-effectiveness. Commissioner Hillmer seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 11. Open time for items not on the agenda Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, commented on the shuttle temporary closure of the Pacheco Pathway, impact of the closure on many bike/ped commuters, and Caltrans’ agreement to provide a shuttle service during the time of the closure. He also discussed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work being done for pathways around the Bettini Transit Center and MCBC’s involvement in the process. Cindy Winter shared information from the California Highway Design Manual regarding how to determine the need for pedestrian grade separation and overcrossing, and she recommended those standards be applied for the Lucky Drive pedestrian overcrossing.

Item 5a-3


Page 14 of 14

Barry Taranto commented on his experience using Golden Gate Transit and the poor customer service he experienced. He urged TAM to require better from that organization. He also discussed Marin Grassroots Leadership Network and their concern that disadvantaged people have access to quality public transit. He questioned why the Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group was needed when the problems should have been solved two years ago during the project’s planning process. He encouraged the Board to pay closer attention to its member cities in the future. Thomas Jackovics echoed Mr. Taranto’s comments, and he explained that the consultants had no contact with the public during the planning for the Greenbrae project, which is why the problems weren’t heard and responded to sooner. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Approved on:

Item 5a-3

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Suzanne Loosen, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Review and Recommend for Approval the 2013 Congestion Management

Program Update (Action), Agenda Item 5b Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary As part of TAM’s responsibilities as a Congestion Management Agency, it must update its Congestion Management Program (CMP) every two years to remain eligible for federal and state funds. The next update to the CMP is due to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on October 16, 2013. Cities and counties have a vested interest in complying with the CMP requirements because their receipt of Proposition 111 gas tax subventions, along with other state and federal transportation funds, is conditioned on the development of a CMP. CMP monitoring was conducted under a separate contract in fall 2012. The monitoring report includes a quantitative description of traffic on Marin’s designated CMP roadways. Peak hour commute traffic counts and travel time measurements provide the basis for identifying the roadway performance and levels of congestion in the CMP. (It should be noted that weekend traffic counts are not required or conducted as part of the CMP.) The 2013 CMP Update must be consistent with the latest RTP (Plan Bay Area, adopted July 2013) and with the current MTC travel model. According to monitoring and analysis reported in this CMP Update, there are no changes in the results compared with the 2011 CMP, and no local jurisdictions are considered out of conformance. The 2013 CMP Update was presented to TAM’s Executive Committee on September 9, 2013. Committee members asked for clarification on several topics. Questions and answers are included below (at the end of this report). The Executive Committee recommended approval of the CMP update by the full TAM Board by consent at its September 26, 2013 meeting. Recommendation: Approve draft CMP Update for submission to MTC (due October 14, 2013). Determine that all of Marin’s jurisdictions are in conformance with the adopted CMP at this time, pending comments from MTC in its review.

TAM Board of Commissioners, Agenda Item 5b Page 2 of 5 September 26, 2013

Background As part of TAM’s responsibilities as a Congestion Management Agency, it must update its Congestion Management Program (CMP) every two years to remain eligible for federal and state funds. The next update to the CMP is due to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on October 16, 2013. Consistent with requirements of state law, TAM staff and its consultant, TJKM Transportation Consultants have completed a draft of the 2013 Update to the Marin County CMP. CMPs measure congestion on key highway and arterial segments, evaluate this congestion against pre-established performance standards, enumerate any deficiencies requiring remedial action, address Transportation Demand Management and other traffic relief strategies, and compile a capital improvement program to improve multi-modal system performance. The CMP update allows TAM and its member agencies to continue to access federal and state funds. The requirements for the CMP were enacted with the passage of Assembly Bill 471 (1989) and became effective upon voter approval of the Prop 111 Blueprint Legislation passed in June 1990. The CMP sets the stage for local land use changes to not adversely impact current transportation service below Level of Service D, without committed transportation mitigation measures. The goal of the original legislation was to tie together land use decisions with transportation investments. Proposition 111 provided for a nine-cent increase in the state gas tax over a five-year period. The CMP legislation makes the following requirements of a conformance determination for local jurisdictions:

• Maintain highway Level of Service (LOS) standards outlined in the CMP (LOS E for highways and LOS D for local arterials), with the exclusion of grandfathered segments;

• Participate in a program to analyze the impact of land-use decisions; • Participate in the adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan when LOS standards

are not maintained, with the exclusion of grandfathered segments. Cities and counties have a vested interest in complying with the CMP requirements because their receipt of Proposition 111 gas tax subventions, along with other state and federal transportation funds, is conditioned on the development of a CMP. California Government Code Section 65089 requires that every county that includes an urbanized area adopt a CMP. The CMP shall include every city and the county. California Government Code Section 65088.1 defines urbanized areas as being over 50,000 in population. Marin County meets this definition. MTC CMP Guidance MTC published updates to its CMP Guidance on July 5, 2013. The 2013 CMP Update must be consistent with the latest adopted RTP (Plan Bay Area, adopted July 2013) and with the current MTC travel model. Changes to MTC’s CMP Guidance include references to regional goals and policies established in the draft Plan Bay Area. (A description of the regional coordinated land use and transportation planning process as directed through SB 375 was included in the 2011 CMP Guidance.)


Draft 2013 CMP Update Report The 2013 CMP Update was completed by TJKM Associates. (At its June 27, 2013 meeting, the TAM Board authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract with TJKM to complete the CMP Update in an amount not-to-exceed $39,000.) As with the 2011 CMP Update, the 2013 Update used the most recent (2012) monitoring data, the most current land use projections, and travel demand analyses to measure system performance and estimate future needs. Once these are determined, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP), encompassing local jurisdiction CIP elements, will be reported, promoting the goals of the CMP. This CIP will be coordinated with local jurisdictions regarding any needed improvements. CMP monitoring was conducted under a separate contract in fall 2012. The monitoring report includes a quantitative description of traffic on Marin’s designated CMP roadways. Peak hour commute traffic counts and travel time measurements provide the basis for identifying the roadway performance and levels of congestion in the CMP. It should be noted that weekend traffic counts are not conducted as part of the CMP. The status of 27 highway and local arterial segments is reported by TJKM in the CMP Update. None are deficient from a statutory standpoint. Either the segments meet the performance standard for the roadway category (Level of Service E for Highways and LOS D for local arterials) or those segments having severe congestion are “grandfathered” (meaning they were already severely congested segments when the CMP legislation took effect), or their congestion is being addressed with existing capital projects. As statutory deficiencies are not apparent at this time, the draft CMP does not include “deficiency plans.” The CMP does, however, recommend monitoring of both traffic and land use with appropriate improvement plans, as necessary. Overview of CMP Results Roadway System Level of Service The monitoring results of roadway segments have varied little since the 2011 CMP Update. One grandfathered segment, US 101 between Tiburon Boulevard (State Route 131) and Tamalpais Drive, remained at LOS F in 2012 (identical result to 2010). Grandfathered roadway segments are those that operated at a lower (deficient) LOS than the standard established in 1991. Such segments are allowed to continue operating at a lower LOS standard level until such time as they are improved or the traffic load is diverted. All other monitored CMP roadway segments (grandfathered and non-grandfathered) are within LOS standards as they were in the 2011 CMP. System Performance The transit system in Marin County continues to carry many residents and workers. The recent dedication of additional resources has led to an expansion of local transit service, which in turn has increased local boardings. Overall demand for Marin Transit basic and Golden Gate commuter services to and from San Francisco has increased slightly after a pronounced decline


in recent years, and Marin Transit has maintained most bus services to meet increased demand after previous service reductions. There continues to be growing demand for paratransit services in Marin County (Whistlestop Wheels), as demonstrated by increased usage since the last CMP. Marin Transit additionally sponsors two new programs as a result of passage of Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee: 1) a Volunteer Driver program for seniors who have difficulty using fixed route or paratransit services, and 2) Catch-a-Ride, which allows eligible Marin County residents to receive a discount to ride on taxis and other licensed vehicles throughout Marin County. The performance measures presented in this chapter show that multimodal demand is not showing significant change in recent years. Bus travel times along US 101 between San Rafael Transit Center and Golden Gate Bridge were generally similar between 2010 and 2012, except in the northbound direction during the PM peak. Overall traffic flow on some major corridors was better in 2012 than it was in 2010; however, some of this is attributable to a change in monitoring segment lengths. For example, US 101 segment monitoring between San Rafael Transit Center and the Sonoma County line were made to Novato in 2012, while in 2010 measurements were made to Petaluma, approximately 12 miles further north. Travel Demand Management TAM continues to expand its Travel Demand Management and commute alternative efforts. A Vanpool Incentive Program has been established with substantial financial support from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). TAM’s Emergency Ride Home Program, launched spring 2013, has been marketed to employers throughout Marin County. The program promotes and supports various alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) driving, including transit and ridesharing (carpool, vanpool, or other similar means), as well as bicycling and walking. Under the program, those who use such commute alternatives will have access to free transportation home (via taxi) in the event of an unforeseen emergency. SchoolPool, a component of Safe Routes to Schools, is a ride matching program that helps to address school-related congestion. In addition, TAM is part of a three-county pilot collaboration that is testing a Dynamic (or “real-time”) Rideshare software program for smart phones, which is supported by MTC Climate Initiative Grant Program funding. Finally, TAM continues to coordinate rideshare marketing activities with MTC’s Regional 511 Rideshare Program. Monitoring, Deficiency Plans and Conformance Local jurisdictions must meet the CMP conformance requirements to receive funding in several state programs. The process of conformity has not substantively changed in the 2013 CMP. LOS monitoring did not report any new deficiencies and local jurisdictions that conform to the land use analysis program requirements are expected to remain in conformance. Executive Committee Review of the draft 2013 CMP The draft 2013 CMP was reviewed by TAM’s Executive Committee at its September 9, 2013 meeting. Committee members asked for clarification on several topics. Questions and answers are included below. Q: Why does the CMP use forecasts from Plan Bay Area, adopted in July 2013, instead of the forecasts issued by the California Department of Finance (DOF) in 2012?


A: The CMP Update and the associated Marin Travel Model must be consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan, which is Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area’s jobs, population and housing growth assumptions were developed in 2010, and were based on the 2007 State DOF forecasts and the Association of Bay Area Government’s economic forecasts. In 2012, ABAG growth forecasts were updated with the 2010 census results. The 2012 ABAG forecasts were the basis for the environmental review conducted in 2012-13 for Plan Bay Area. In spring 2013, the DOF released updated population forecasts for the State and counties of California. The 2013 DOF numbers reflected a slower rate of population growth than in 2007, due primarily to the impacts of the economic recession and reduced birth rates. ABAG staff have stated that they will consult closely with the DOF when the region’s population, housing and jobs forecasts are revisited for the 2017 update of Plan Bay Area. Q: Is CEQA streamlining a part of this document? A: No. SB 375 CEQA streamlining provisions are not a part of the CMP Update. Q: Do we monitor changes in Level of Service in HOV lanes? A: HOV lanes in CMP segments are monitored and reported in Tables 5a and 5b. Staff has added historical Level of Service information to Table 6. The results show how LOS has varied over the years, in response to the economy and the gap closure of the HOV lane. Q: Is weekend travel monitored? A: The CMP monitors peak hour weekday travel on a specific roadway network as established by the Marin County CMA in 1991. The concern about weekend traffic in certain locations has been raised in the past; weekend monitoring can be implemented with direction of the Board. The Executive Committee recommended approval of the 2013 CMP Update by the full TAM Board by consent at its September 26, 2013 meeting. Recommendation: Approve draft CMP Update for submission to MTC (due October 14, 2013). Determine that all of Marin’s jurisdictions are in conformance with the adopted CMP at this time, pending comments from MTC in its review. Attachment: Draft Marin County Congestion Management Program 2013 Update

Making the Most of Marin’s Transportation Dollars

Pleasanton

Fresno

Sacramento

Santa Rosa www.tjkm.com

TJKM

Draft Report Marin County Congestion Management Program 2013 Update Prepared for: Transportation Authority of Marin By: TJKM Transportation Consultants September 26, 2013

Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 4305 Hacienda Drive Suite 550 Pleasanton, CA 94588-2798 Tel: 925.463.0611 Fax: 925.463.3690

Draft Report Marin County Congestion Management Program 2013 Update Prepared for: Transportation Authority of Marin September 26, 2013

Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners

Alice Fredericks, Chair Tiburon Town Council Judy Arnold, Vice Chair County of Marin Supervisor - District 5 Susan L. Adams County of Marin Supervisor - District 1 Sandra Donnell Belvedere City Council Diane Furst Corte Madera Town Council Ford Greene San Anselmo Town Council Dan Hillmer Larkspur City Council Steve Kinsey County of Marin Supervisor - District 4 P. Beach Kuhl Ross Town Council Eric Lucan Novato City Council Stephanie Moulton-Peters Mill Valley City Council Gary Phillips San Rafael City Council John Reed Fairfax Town Council Katie Rice County of Marin Supervisor - District 2 Kathrin Sears County of Marin Supervisor - District 3 Herb Weiner Sausalito City Council

Transportation Authority of Marin Dianne Steinhauser, P.E. Executive Director Suzanne Loosen Project Manager and Senior Transportation Planner Dan Cherrier, P.E. Principal Project Delivery Manager Linda M. Jackson, AICP Planning Manager

TJKM Transportation Consultants Nayan Amin, P.E. Principal / QA-QC Andrew Kluter, P.E. Project Manager Joanna Liu, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Wesley Catanzaro Assistant Project Engineer Prashanth Dullu Assistant Project Engineer Jeffrey Lacap Assistant Transportation Engineer Dan Harrison Graphics Rosa Johnson Word Processing

Table of Contents

Transportation Authority of Marin ................................................................................................................ 1 TJKM Transportation Consultants ................................................................................................................. 1

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1. Designated Roadway System ........................................................................................... 4

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................... 4 Relationship to Regional Plans ........................................................................................................................ 4 Designated CMP System .................................................................................................................................. 4 County CMP Designated Network ............................................................................................................... 5

2. Roadway System Level of Service ................................................................................... 8

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................... 8 Highway Level of Service Standards .............................................................................................................. 9

Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 9 Facility Classifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 Definition of Roadway Segments ............................................................................................................. 10 Identification of “Grandfathered” Roadway Segments ....................................................................... 10 2012 Monitoring Results ............................................................................................................................ 11

3. System Performance ...................................................................................................... 24

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 24 Current Transit Operations in Marin County .......................................................................................... 24

Marin Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 25 Golden Gate Transit ................................................................................................................................... 28 Ferry Services ............................................................................................................................................... 29 Summary of Fixed Route Services and Boardings ................................................................................ 29 Specialized Transit Services ....................................................................................................................... 30

Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs .................................................................................................................. 31 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and Programs by Jurisdiction ......................................................... 33 Local Jurisdictions Bicycle Plans ............................................................................................................... 39

Performance Measures ................................................................................................................................... 40 Aggregate Peak Hour Travel Time .......................................................................................................... 40 Person Throughput ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Jobs/Housing (Employed Residents) Balance ........................................................................................ 42 Mode Shares for Work Travel ................................................................................................................. 45

4. Travel Demand Management ........................................................................................ 46

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 46 Travel Demand Management in Marin County ......................................................................................... 46 Air Quality Plan Consistency as Incorporated into Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) .............. 48 Additional Transportation Demand Management Activity .................................................................... 51

Station Area Planning .................................................................................................................................. 51 Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Design Toolkit ................................................................................ 51 Reducing Vehicles Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................ 51 School Rideshare Outreach ...................................................................................................................... 52

5. Land Use Analysis ........................................................................................................... 53

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 53 Land Use Analysis Program Part A: Major Development Projects and General Plan Updates ..... 54

Threshold for Part A Analysis .................................................................................................................. 54 Procedures for Part A Analysis ................................................................................................................ 54

Land Use Analysis Program Part B: Biennial Development Tracking .................................................. 56 Additional Periodic Compliance ................................................................................................................... 56 Relationship of Land Use Analysis Program to CEQA ........................................................................... 57 Impacts of Non-Compliance .......................................................................................................................... 58

6. Travel Demand Model .................................................................................................... 59

Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 59 Local Agency Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 59 Travel Demand Forecast Overview ............................................................................................................ 59 Existing and Past Programs ............................................................................................................................ 59 MTC Modeling Consistency .......................................................................................................................... 60

Update Process ............................................................................................................................................ 61 Marin Travel Model Conformity to MTC Model Data ....................................................................... 61

Relationship to Marin County Capital Improvement Program ............................................................. 64

7. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) .......................................................................... 65 Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 65 Relationship to Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ............................................................................... 65 Relationship to Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) ........................................... 65 Relationship to Air Quality Attainment Plans ........................................................................................... 65 Project Funding Identified in TAM Measure A Strategic Plan ................................................................ 65 Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project and Funding ........................................................................................... 67 Recent Project Funding Identified in California Transportation Commission Programs ................ 68 Recent Project Funding Identified in Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) ..... 70 Project Funding Identified in TAM Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Strategic Plan .................. 71 Project Funding Identified in Local Jurisdictions’ Bicycle Plans ............................................................. 74

8. Deficiency Plan Procedures ........................................................................................... 75 Purpose and Intent of Legislation ................................................................................................................. 75 Local Government Conformance Requirements ..................................................................................... 75 Local Government Monitoring Requirements .......................................................................................... 75

Maintaining Highway Level of Service Standards .................................................................................. 76 Participation in Required Deficiency Plans ............................................................................................ 76 Maintaining Program to Analyze Impacts from Land Use Decisions ............................................... 77

9. Study References ............................................................................................................ 78

List of Figures Figure 1: Marin CMP Roadway Network .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Grandfathered Roadway Network .................................................................................................. 14 List of Tables Table 1: Roadway Network Segments ................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2: Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) Criteria .......................................................................... 8 Table 3: Approaches to Marin CMP Issues ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 4: Grandfathered CMP Roadway Facilities ............................................................................................ 12 Table 5a: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Northbound / Eastbound

Direction .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5b: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Southbound / Westbound

Direction .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 6: Historic LOS Trends – PM Peak Direction ...................................................................................... 19 Table 7: Actions Recommended by CMP Roadway Segment ...................................................................... 22 Table 8: Marin Transit Routes/Peak Headways for Fixed-Route Service .................................................. 26 Table 9: Regional Golden Gate Bus Transit Routes and Peak Headways ................................................. 28 Table 10: Transit Ridership Trends in Marin County .................................................................................... 30 Table 11: Marin Access Paratransit Performance Statistics, FY 2007 to FY 2012 .................................. 31 Table 12: Corridor Peak Hour Travel Time Monitoring Results ................................................................ 41 Table 13: Person Throughput Monitoring Results – PM Peak Hour .......................................................... 43 Table 14: Bay Area Jobs/Housing Balance Projections .................................................................................. 44 Table 15: Journey-to-Work Transportation Mode Shares in Marin County ........................................... 45 Table 16: 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in Marin CMP 48 Table 17: Marin County Measure A Strategic Plan Capital Projects .......................................................... 66 Table 18: State Transportation Improvement Program Projects in Marin County ................................ 68 Table 19: State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects ................................. 69 Table 20: Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Projects ............................................ 70 Table 21: Marin County Measure B Strategic Plan Capital Projects........................................................... 73

Draft Report – 2013 Update: Marin County Congestion Management Program Page 1

September 26, 2013

Executive Summary

The 2013 Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a document of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Marin County. The 2013 biennial update is required by State statute. Following are highlights of this document. Chapter 1: Designated Roadway System The designated CMP roadway system in Marin County has not changed as required by law. In the 2011 CMP, the CMP network numbering system was redefined into corridors and segments, allowing readers to more easily reference roadway performance tables in the future. Chapter 2: Roadway System Level of Service (LOS) The monitoring results of roadway segments have varied little since the 2011 CMP Update, although some segments show improved levels of service (LOS). All but one monitored CMP roadway segment (grandfathered and non-grandfathered) are within LOS standards as they were in the 2011 CMP. That grandfathered segment, US 101 between Tiburon Boulevard (State Route 131) and Tamalpais Drive, stayed at LOS F in 2012, identical to 2010. Grandfathered roadway segments are those that operated at a lower (deficient) LOS than the standard established in 1991. Such segments are allowed to continue operating at a lower LOS standard level until such time as they are improved or the traffic load is diverted. Chapter 3: System Performance The transit system in Marin County continues to carry many residents and workers. The recent dedication of additional resources has led to an expansion of local transit service, which in turn has increased local boardings. Overall demand for Marin Transit basic and Golden Gate commuter services to and from San Francisco has increased slightly after a pronounced decline in recent years, and Marin Transit has maintained most bus services to meet increased demand after previous service reductions. There continues to be growing demand for paratransit services in Marin County (Whistlestop Wheels), as demonstrated by increased usage since the last CMP. Marin Transit additionally sponsors two new programs since 2011: 1) a Volunteer Driver program for seniors who have difficulty using fixed route or paratransit services, and 2) Catch-a-Ride, which allows eligible Marin County residents to receive a discount to ride on taxis and other licensed vehicles throughout Marin County. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are important to many jurisdictions. These improvements are detailed according to information received from staff at each local jurisdiction. Many such improvements are associated with Safe Routes to Schools programs. The performance measures presented in this chapter show that multi‐modal demand is not showing significant change in the last two years. Bus travel times along US 101 between San Rafael Transit Center and Golden Gate Bridge were generally similar between 2010 and 2012, except in the northbound direction during the PM peak, which reduced from 88 to 52 minutes. Overall traffic flow on some major corridors was better in 2012 than it was in 2010; however, some of this is attributable to a change in monitoring segment lengths. For example, a decision was made to


September 26, 2013

shorten US 101 segment monitoring between San Rafael Transit Center and the Sonoma County line to Novato in 2012, while in 2010 measurements were made to Petaluma, approximately 12 miles further north. There has been a decrease in total employed County residents in Marin County over the last two years, which is likely a lingering effect of the economic recession of the previous decade. Regional forecasts from the regional Plan Bay Area show that in 2010, Marin County had approximately 4,000 more jobs than employed residents, while in 2040 it is expected that the County will have about 7,400 more employed residents than jobs. Chapter 4: Travel Demand Management Marin County Measure A, the 1/2-cent transportation sales tax measure passed in 2004, expanded travel demand management programs in Marin County. These programs are successfully operating today. School programs include Safe Routes to Schools and SchoolPool programs. TAM also promotes compact development strategies by providing the Pedestrian and Transit‐Oriented Design Toolkit (2007) and encouraging SMART Station Area Planning efforts in San Rafael and Larkspur. With recent adoption of Plan Bay Area, and the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) mandated by SB 375, future programs in Marin County will continue to be refined to offer alternative approaches to living with traffic congestion. Chapter 5: Land Use Analysis Program The CMP presents two important elements of the Land Use Analysis Program: Part A for major development projects and general plan updates, and Part B for biennial development tracking, both of which require local government participation and cooperation. The first program was adopted in 1991. Chapter 6: Travel Demand Model CMP requirements include maintaining and utilizing a travel demand model that is consistent with the regional model and available for use in corridor and development studies. The active status of this model is summarized for 2013. The Marin Travel Model (MTM) is currently being updated with 2040 land use projections to be consistent with Plan Bay Area forecasts. Chapter 7: Capital Improvements Program This CMP is the first to identify programs and funding relative to County Measure B, the $10 vehicle registration fee (VRF) passed by Marin County voters in 2010. Measure B includes three elements: maintain local streets and pathways; improve transit for seniors and persons with disabilities; and, reduce congestion and pollution with programs relating to school safety and congestion, commute alternatives, and alternative fuels. A majority of Measure A funding is now allocated to operating existing programs. Also, many Marin County projects have received major funding from other sources in the past several years, so that there are not many improvements that can be identified. The most significant investment to Marin’s roadway system, the Marin‐Sonoma Narrows (MSN) Project, is detailed in this chapter. MSN Phase 1 projects are underway, with the Novato carpool lane component completed in 2012. This report also describes other projects whose funding is provided and tracked by regional and state agencies.


September 26, 2013

Chapter 8: Monitoring, Deficiency Plans and Conformance Local jurisdictions must meet the CMP conformance requirements to receive funding from several State programs. The conformity process has not substantively changed in the 2013 CMP. LOS monitoring in this CMP did not find any new deficiencies, and local jurisdictions that conform to the land use analysis program requirements are expected to remain in conformance.


September 26, 2013

1. Designated Roadway System

Purpose and Intent of Legislation The Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system is a network that allows performance monitoring in terms of established level‐of‐service (LOS) standards. The network must be created at a level such that impacts can be identified, and a connection can be made between proposed projects and their specific impacts on the network. The network can neither be too small, as impacts would be unidentifiable, nor too large, as there would be logistical issues in monitoring network performance. The CMP was established as part of the legislated Transportation Blueprint of 1990 and became a requirement for Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) across California to fulfill. The Marin County CMA established the CMP roadway network in 1991. The designated CMP roadway system includes all state highways and principal arterial roadways in Marin County. California Government Code Section 65089(b)(1)(A) states that once a highway or roadway has been designated as part of the CMP system, it cannot be removed. Furthermore, Section 60589(b)(4) requires that the regional transportation system is part of the required land use program defined by State statute. Relationship to Regional Plans The CMP is a short-range document containing elements which further the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the San Francisco Bay Area’s regional transportation planning agency. The Marin CMP roadway system is consistent with the RTP, which was adopted in July 2013 as part of Plan Bay Area. The designated County CMP roadway system is included within the RTP’s Metropolitan Transportation System. This facilitates regional consistency between the Marin CMP and CMPs of adjoining Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Sonoma counties. Designated CMP System Prior Marin County CMPs have defined State highways and other principal arterial roadways for the County CMP roadway network. MTC has provided a framework that allows for flexibility in defining the principal arterial system. The following criteria were used to establish the designated CMP roadway network: State Highways. All State highways must be included in the CMP roadway network according to the CMP legislation. If a route is to be removed from the State Highway System, it is to be evaluated according to principal arterial criteria to determine whether it should remain in the CMP network. Principal Arterial Roadways. Marin’s first CMP, created in 1991, designated principal arterial roadways in addition to State facilities as the CMP roadway network. Non-State CMP roadways were included based upon the following criteria:

• Purpose and function of the roadway • Land use adjacent to the roadway and proximity to activity centers • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume, generally greater than 25,000 daily vehicles • Connectivity to other facilities


September 26, 2013

County CMP Designated Network Figure 1 illustrates all designated CMP roadway facilities within Marin County. The following roadways are designated as the State Highway corridors of the Marin CMP roadway network:

1. State Route 1 – from Sonoma County Line to US 101 2. State Route 37 – from US 101 to Sonoma County line 3. US 101 – from Sonoma County Line to San Francisco County Line 4. State Route 131 – from US 101 to Main Street in Tiburon 5. Interstate 580 – from US 101 to Contra Costa County Line

As noted above, additional roadways were designated in Marin’s CMP in 1991. The following routes (also shown in Figure 1) are the Principal Arterials of the Marin CMP Roadway Network:

6. Novato Boulevard/South Novato Boulevard in Novato – from Sutro Avenue/San Marin Drive to U. S. 101

7. Bel Marin Keys Boulevard – from US 101 southbound ramps to Commercial Boulevard 8. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in unincorporated Marin County, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross,

Kentfield, Larkspur – from State Route 1 to Interstate 580 9. Red Hill Avenue/2nd Street/3rd Street in San Anselmo and San Rafael – from Sir Francis

Drake Boulevard to US 101 10. Bridgeway/Second Street/Alexander Avenue in Sausalito – from US 101 to US 101

Table 1 provides a detailed description of the Marin CMP Roadway Network segments. In total, the 123-mile CMP designated roadway network contains 91 miles of state highways and 32 miles of principal arterial roadways. Table 1: Roadway Network Segments

Corridor Segment Description

No. Roadway Type Old

Segment No.

No. Street Name From To

1 State Route 1 Arterial

25 1A Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Almonte Blvd

19 1B Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Almonte Blvd Sir Francis Drake Blvd

1 1C Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Sonoma County Line

2 State Route 37 Freeway 5 2A State Route 37 US 101 Sonoma County Line

3 US 101 Freeway

21 3A US 101 San Francisco County Line

Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)

17 3B US 101 Tiburon Blvd (SR 131)

Sir Francis Drake Blvd

13 3C US 101 Sir Francis Drake Blvd I-580

11 3D US 101 I-580 Mission Avenue

8 3E US 101 Mission Avenue N. San Pedro Road

7 3F US 101 N. San Pedro Road SR 37


September 26, 2013

Corridor Segment Description

No. Roadway Type Old

Segment No.

No. Street Name From To

2 3G US 101 SR 37 Sonoma County Line

4 State Route 131 Arterial 18 4A Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) US 101 Main St

(Tiburon)

5 Interstate 580 Freeway 15 5A I-580 Contra Costa

Co Line Sir Francis Drake Blvd

14 5B I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101

6 Novato Blvd/ South Novato

Blvd Arterial

3 6A Novato Blvd San Marin Drive Wilson Ave

24 6B Novato Blvd Wilson Ave Diablo Ave

4 6C South Novato Blvd Diablo Ave US 101

7 Bel Marin Keys Blvd Arterial 6 7A Bel Marin Keys Blvd US 101 Commercial

Blvd

8 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Arterial

22 8A Sir Francis Drake Blvd


Butterfield Road

9 8B Sir Francis Drake Blvd Butterfield Road Red Hill

Avenue

23 8C Sir Francis Drake Blvd Red Hill Avenue College

Avenue

12 8D Sir Francis Drake Blvd College Avenue US 101

16 8E Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 1-580

9 Red Hill Ave / 2nd St / 3rd St Arterial

10 9A Red Hill Avenue Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Marquard Ave/4th St

26 9B 2nd Street Marquard Ave/4th St US 101

27 9C 3rd Street US 101 Marquard Ave/4th St

10 Bridgeway/Second St/ Alexander Ave Arterial 20 10A Bridgeway/Second St/

Alexander Ave US 101 US 101


September 26, 2013

Figure 1: Marin CMP Roadway Network


September 26, 2013

2. Roadway System Level of Service

Purpose and Intent of Legislation California Government Code 65089(b)(1)(A) requires that level‐of‐service (LOS) standards be established as part of a CMP, using the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual or an accepted alternative. Traffic LOS definitions describe roadway operational conditions in terms of speed and travel time, volume, capacity, ease of maneuverability, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Table 2 shows the roadway segment LOS criteria used in monitoring the Marin County CMP roadway network. There are six gradations of LOS, from A to F. LOS A reflects free-flow conditions, with vehicles traveling at the maximum posted speed. LOS F reflects forced-flow, or “bumper-to-bumper” congested conditions. Table 2: Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) Criteria

Level of Service Basic Freeway

Segment Travel Speed* (mph**)

Major Arterial Segment

Travel Speed* (mph)

Basic*** Freeway (V/C)

Major*** Freeway (V/C)

A >60 >25 0.35 0.60

B 57-60 20-25 0.54 0.70

C 54-56 13-19 0.77 0.80

D 47-53 10-13 0.93 0.90

E 30-46 7-9 1.00 1.00

F <30 <7 >1.00 >1.00 Notes: *Speed rounded to nearest integer.

** mph = miles per hour ***LOS criteria used in Transportation System Performance Monitoring Reports (2008 & 2012). Traffic volumes were collected at one point along the roadway segment then divided by a predetermined roadway capacity to arrive at a V/C ratio.

Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.

The LOS designation as related to facility speeds and volume-to-capacity ratios provides a quantitative tool that can be used to analyze the impacts of land use changes on the CMP network. Traffic LOS also is used as a measure of system performance (e.g., congestion). Every two years TAM (as Marin’s CMA) is required to determine whether local governments have been conforming to the CMP, including attainment of LOS standards. This is achieved through a self-certification process in which TAM monitors and reports LOS conditions. The CMA can also consider local jurisdiction monitoring reports to aid in determining whether the local city is in conformance with the CMP. Additional detail on monitoring requirements is included in Chapter 8. Local cities and towns must consider the impacts that land use decisions have on LOS on the designated CMP network. TAM (as County CMA) works with local government entities to determine whether a change in land use affects LOS negatively, and how to mitigate any anticipated deficiencies. A systems approach may have to be examined when considering LOS of the entire system. Cities and counties may be responsible for improvements and funding of programs that affect the system as a whole.


September 26, 2013

Highway Level of Service Standards

Goals and Objectives

The LOS methodology should allow for measurement of traffic growth trends through changes in volumes, capacity, and delay. CMP legislative guidance identifies several issues that affect the determination of LOS and the application of a standard. The Marin County CMP has developed an approach that is consistent, easy to use, non-duplicative, and compatible with local government data and travel demand models. Table 3 below summarizes the approach used to address each issue identified in the guidance. The CMP legislation allows trips not originating in a county, trips passing through a county, or trips generated by low- and very low-income housing to be excluded from the determination of conformance with LOS standards following consultation with MTC, Caltrans, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. TAM, however, decided to include these trips when determining conformance with LOS standards for local planning purposes, as exclusion of these trips would present a misleading picture of the traffic conditions in the county and could artificially skew the inclusion and/or ranking of projects in the seven-year Capital Improvement Program. Table 3: Approaches to Marin CMP Issues

Issue Approach

Inter-County Trips In accordance with California statutory requirements, trips with no end in Marin County (through trips) are not to be included for deficiency plan determination. These trips are included for performance reporting.

LOS Standards D for Urban and Suburban Arterial Roadways E for Freeways and Rural Expressways (US 101, I-580, and SR 37)

Method of Analysis: Freeway and Rural

Expressway Segments

The analysis technique for freeway segments, based on segment weekday PM peak-hour volume to capacity ratios is from chapter 23 and 24 of the Highway Capacity Manual. (The PM peak hour is the highest consecutive 60 minutes of traffic in the afternoon, typically between 5 PM and 6 PM.)

Method of Analysis: Urban and Suburban Arterial Segments

Volume-to-Capacity ratios are the analysis technique for arterial sequences, utilizing capacities provided in Chapter 15 and 16 of the Highway Capacity Manual, and based on weekday PM peak-hour traffic volumes. (The PM peak hour is the highest consecutive 60 minutes of traffic in the afternoon, typically between 5 PM and 6 PM.)

Method of Analysis: Rural Arterial

Roadways

Chapter 20 of the Highway Capacity Manual is the analysis technique to be applied for rural roadways, based on weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes. (The PM peak hour is the highest consecutive 60 minutes of traffic in the afternoon, typically between 5 PM and 6 PM.)

Monitoring

The local agency (e.g., city and county) or TAM performs the LOS monitoring. Monitoring frequency is to be biennial (with certain exceptions outlined in Chapter 8 of the Highway Capacity Manual), recognizing that more frequent counting could be done as part of development impact study requirements.

Deficiency Analysis More refined analyses may be required when determining if a roadway segment is deficient. If appropriate, the operational analysis methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual may be used to determine LOS.


September 26, 2013

Facility Classifications

The Highway Capacity Manual provides methods for determining LOS on several types of facilities. These facilities are grouped into interrupted- and uninterrupted-flow facilities. Interrupted-flow facilities include city streets and non-grade separated highways (like State Route 1) that are part of the State Highway System. For purposes of LOS analysis, the CMP network is classified into two functional types of facilities:

• Basic Freeway and Rural Expressway Segments. These are designed as uninterrupted-flow facilities with multiple lanes available in each direction, with traffic only stopping when traffic is heavy enough to create slow speeds or when breakdowns occur.

• Suburban and Rural Arterial Roadways. Suburban arterial roadways consist of more than

one lane in each direction, with traffic signals less than two miles apart on average. Rural arterial roadways are typically a single lane in each direction but designed at lower speeds than rural expressways and have occasional interrupted flow from traffic signals, stop signs or turning vehicles.

Definition of Roadway Segments

Chapter 1 lists the segments of the Marin County CMP network that are analyzed as part of this CMP (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Each segment is assigned a “responsible jurisdiction,” where the jurisdiction named is the one with the greatest segment mileage. This jurisdiction is responsible for preparing any required deficiency plans, as well as complying with all other CMP legislative requirements related to that segment. Other jurisdictions through which a CMP segment travels are expected to work in a cooperative fashion with the responsible jurisdiction, and bear a pro rata share of the cost of any improvement to the facility based on the approximate cost of improvements in their jurisdiction. In the event that funding is needed for a program, each jurisdiction would contribute its fair share of the cost based on segment mileage within the jurisdiction.

Identification of “Grandfathered” Roadway Segments

“Grandfathered” roadway segments are those that operated at a lower (deficient) LOS than the standard established in 1991. Such segments are allowed to continue operating at a lower LOS standard level until such time as they are improved or the traffic load is diverted. Freeway segments that operated at LOS F or arterial segments that operate at LOS E or F in the 1991 CMP qualify as “grandfathered” segments. Table 4 lists the monitoring locations for each CMP facility in Marin County, while Figure 2 illustrates the grandfathered segments of those facilities. At the time when the Marin County CMP was created, there was an agreement that some segments would operate at deficient LOS and should be excluded from local government requirements to maintain the adopted level of service standard as part of any new development approval process. These segments were “grandfathered” and thus not required to meet the level of service standard. In Marin County, the segments that qualify as grandfathered are:


September 26, 2013

• Segment 1B: Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) between Northern Avenue and Almonte Blvd • Segment 3B: US 101 between Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) and Tamalpais Dr (HOV lane

available) • Segment 3C: US 101 between Sir Francis Drake Blvd and I-580 (HOV lane available) • Segment 3D: US 101 between I-580 and Mission Avenue (HOV lane available) • Segment 3E: US 101 between Mission Avenue and N. San Pedro Road (HOV lane available) • Segment 3F: US 101 between Frietas Parkway and Lucas Valley Road (HOV lane available) • Segment 3G: US 101 between Atherton Avenue and Sonoma County Line • Segment 5B: I-580 between Sir Francis Drake Blvd and Bellam Blvd • Segment 7A: Bel Marin Keys Blvd between US 101 and Commercial Blvd • Segment 8A: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between Willow Avenue and Butterfield Road • Segment 8B: Sir Francis Drake Blvd between San Anselmo Avenue and Red Hill Avenue • Segment 8C: Sir Francis Drake Blvd between Toussin Avenue and College Avenue • Segment 8D: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between College Avenue and Wolfe Grade • Segment 8E: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between US 101 and Larkspur Landing Circle

In the future, TAM may wish to develop an improvement plan to address congestion as appropriate for these remaining grandfathered facilities. An improvement plan would consist of a description of the actions required to improve the LOS on the facility, either by increasing capacity or managing the demand for travel in a manner that effectively improves LOS.

2012 Monitoring Results

The monitoring for the 2013 CMP was conducted by Kimley-Horn Associates for TAM. The results of monitoring, documented in the 2012 Transportation System Monitoring Report, provide detailed results that are summarized in Tables 5a, 5b, and 6. Tables 5a and 5b document average travel time, speed survey results, and LOS for the PM peak period. Table 6 contains a historic trend for PM peak period LOS of monitored segments in the peak direction.


September 26, 2013

Table 4: Grandfathered CMP Roadway Facilities Corridor Segment Description Monitoring Location

Grandfathered Status No. Name Type

Old Segment

No. No. Street Name From To From To


25 1A Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Almonte Blvd US 101 Tennessee

Valley No

19 1B Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Almonte Blvd Sonoma County

Line Northern Avenue Almonte Blvd Yes

1 1C Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)


Sonoma County Line

Sir Francis Drake Blvd Point Reyes No

2 State Route 37 Freeway 5 2A State Route 37 US 101 Sonoma County Line US 101 Atherton

Avenue No

3 US 101 Freeway

21 3A US 101 San Francisco County Line


North of Golden Gate

Bridge

Spencer Avenue No

17 3B US 101 Tiburon Blvd (SR 131)


Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) Tamalpais Dr Yes

13 3C US 101 Sir Francis Drake Blvd I-580 Sir Francis

Drake Blvd I-580 Yes

11 3D US 101 I-580 Mission Avenue I-580 Mission Avenue Yes

8 3E US 101 Mission Avenue N. San Pedro Road Mission Avenue N. San Pedro

Road Yes

7 3F US 101 N. San Pedro Road SR 37 Frietas Parkway Lucas Valley

Road Yes

2 3G US 101 SR 37 Sonoma County Line Atherton Ave Sonoma

County Line Yes

4 State Route 131 Arterial 18 4A Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) US 101 Main St

(Tiburon) Redwood

Frontage Road Strawberry

Drive No

5 Interstate 580 Freeway 15 5A I-580 Contra Costa

Co Line Sir Francis Drake Blvd

End of R-SR Bridge

Sir Francis Drake Blvd No

14 5B I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 Sir Francis

Drake Blvd Bellam Blvd Yes

6 Novato Blvd/ South Novato

Blvd Arterial

3 6A Novato Blvd San Marin Drive Wilson Ave San Marin Drive Eucalyptus Ave No

24 6B Novato Blvd Wilson Ave Diablo Ave Grant Avenue Diablo Ave No


September 26, 2013

Corridor Segment Description Monitoring Location Grandfathered

Status No. Name Type Old

Segment No.

No. Street Name From To From To

4 6C South Novato Blvd Diablo Ave US 101 Sunset Parkway US 101 No

7 Bel Marin Keys Blvd Arterial 6 7A Bel Marin Keys

Blvd US 101 Commercial Blvd US 101 Commercial

Blvd Yes


22 8A Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Butterfield Road Willow Ave Butterfield

Road Yes

9 8B Sir Francis Drake Blvd Butterfield Road Red Hill Avenue San Anselmo

Ave Red Hill Ave Yes

23 8C Sir Francis Drake Blvd Red Hill Avenue College Avenue Toussin Ave College Ave Yes

12 8D Sir Francis Drake Blvd College Avenue US 101 College Ave Wolfe Grade Yes

16 8E Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 1-580 US 101 Larkspur

Landing Cir Yes

9 Red Hill Ave/ 2nd St/ 3rd St Arterial

10 9A Red Hill Avenue Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Marquard Ave/4th St

Sir Francis Drake Blvd Hildale Drive No

26 9B 2nd Street Marquard Ave/4th St US 101 Marquard Ave /

4th St US 101 No

27 9C 3rd Street US 101 Marquard Ave/4th St US 101 Marquard Ave

/ 4th St No

10 Bridgeway / Second St /

Alexander Ave Arterial 20 10A

Bridgeway/ Second St/

Alexander Ave US 101 US 101 Gate 5 Gate 6 No


September 26, 2013

Figure 2: Grandfathered Roadway Network


September 26, 2013

Table 5a: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Northbound / Eastbound Direction

No Corridor Name

Corridor Type No

Old Seg. No

Street Name From To Length Direction

Avg. Time (Sec)

Avg. Time (Min)

Avg. Speed (mph)

LOS Result

LOS Standard

Grand-fathered Status


1A 25 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Tennessee

Valley 0.3 NB 79 1.31 20.2 B D No

1B 19 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)

Northern Avenue

Almonte Blvd 0.8 NB 108 1.80 27.9 A D Yes

1C 1 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)


Point Reyes 2.1 NB 206 3.43 36.0 A D No

2 State Route 37 Freeway 2A 5 State Route

37 US 101 Atherton Avenue 2.3 EB 134 2.24 61.9 A E No

3 US 101 Freeway

3A 21 US 101 North of GG Bridge

Spencer Avenue 2.0 NB 98 1.63 43.8 E E No

3B 17 US 101 Tiburon

Blvd (SR 131)

Tamalpais Drive 1.7

NB 241 4.01 22.8 F E Yes

NB HOV 283 4.71 21.7 F E

3C 13 US 101 Sir Francis

Drake Blvd.

I-580 1.3 NB 91 1.51 52.4 D E Yes

NB HOV 89 1.48 53.5 D E

3D 11 US 101 I-580 Mission Avenue 1.1

NB 80 1.34 51.1 D E Yes

NB HOV 74 1.24 53.7 D E

3E 8 US 101 Mission Avenue

N. San Pedro Road

1.6 NB 110 1.84 52.9 D E Yes

NB HOV 110 1.83 54.2 C E

3F 7 US 101 Frietas Parkway

Lucas Valley Road

1.0 NB 46 0.77 59.8 B E Yes

NB HOV 62 1.03 58.9 B E

3G 2 US 101 Atherton Avenue

Sonoma Co. Line 5.3 NB 605 10.08 33.8 E E Yes

4 State Route 131

Arterial 4A 18 Tiburon Blvd (SR

131)

Redwood Frontage

Road

Strawberry Drive 0.5 EB 80 1.34 27.4 A D No

5 Interstate 580 Freeway

5A 15 I-580 End of R-SR Bridge

Sir Francis Drake Blvd 3.3 (EB) EB 312 5.20 38.8 E E No

5B 14 I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Bellam Blvd 1.4 EB 121 2.01 44.5 E E Yes


September 26, 2013

Table 5a: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Northbound / Eastbound Direction (continued)

No Corridor Name

Corridor Type No

Old Seg. No


Avg. Time (Sec)

Avg. Time (Min)

Avg. Speed (mph)

LOS Result

LOS Standard


6

Novato Blvd / South

Novato Blvd

Arterial

6A 3 Novato Blvd

San Marin Drive

Eucalyptus Ave 0.4 NB 68 1.13 23.7 B D No

6B 24 Novato Blvd

Grant Avenue Diablo Ave 0.7 NB 193 3.21 22.0 B D No

6C 4 South

Novato Blvd

Sunset Parkway US 101 1.1 NB 164 2.73 24.7 B D No

7 Bel Marin

Keys Boulevard

Arterial 7A 6 Bel Marin Keys Blvd US 101 Commercial

Blvd 0.3 EB 38 0.64 26.8 A D Yes


8A 22 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Willow Ave

Butterfield Road 0.2 EB 34 0.57 25.5 A D Yes

8B 9 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

San Anselmo

Ave

Red Hill Ave 1.1 EB 235 3.92 17.3 C D Yes

8C 23 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Toussin Ave College Ave 0.3 EB 98 1.63 12.0 D D Yes

8D 12 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

College Ave

Wolfe Grade 0.6 EB 83 1.38 26.9 A D Yes

8E 16 Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 Larkspur

Landing Cir 0.4 EB 169 2.82 13.4 C D Yes

9 Red Hill

Ave / 2nd St / 3rd St

Arterial

9A 10 Red Hill Avenue


Hildale Drive 0.4 EB 55 0.91 27.6 A D No

9B 26 2nd Street Marquard Ave/4th

St US 101 0.8 EB 242 4.04 16.6 C D No

9C 27 3rd Street US 101 Marquard

Ave / 4th St 0.8 One-way Street D No

10

Bridgeway / 2nd St / Alexander

Ave

Arterial 10A 20

Bridgeway / 2nd St /

Alexander Ave

Gate 5 Gate 6 0.2 NB 43 0.71 19.5 C D No


September 26, 2013

Table 5b: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Southbound / Westbound Direction

No Corridor Name

Corridor Type No

Old Seg. No


Avg. Time (Sec)

Avg. Time (Min)

Avg. Speed (mph)

LOS Result

LOS Standard



1A 25 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Tennessee

Valley 0.3 SB 77 1.29 18.5 C D No

1B 19 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)

Northern Avenue

Almonte Blvd 0.8 SB 120 2.00 24.9 B D Yes

1C 1 Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)


Point Reyes 2.1 SB 208 3.46 35.8 A D No

2 State Route 37 Freeway 2A 5 State Route

37 US 101 Atherton Avenue 2.3 WB 133 2.22 60.0 A E No

3 US 101 Freeway

3A 21 US 101 North of GG Bridge

Spencer Avenue 2.0 SB 260 4.33 36.4 E E No

3B 17 US 101 Tiburon

Blvd (SR 131)

Tamalpais Drive 1.7

SB 92 1.53 49.7 D E Yes

No SB HOV in PM Peak E

3C 13 US 101 Sir Francis

Drake Blvd.

I-580 1.3 SB 88 1.47 54.0 C E Yes


3D 11 US 101 I-580 Mission Avenue 1.1

SB 73 1.21 55.4 C E Yes


3E 8 US 101 Mission Avenue

N. San Pedro Road

1.6 SB 172 2.87 37.1 E E Yes


3F 7 US 101 Frietas Parkway

Lucas Valley Road

1.0 SB 46 0.77 60.3 A E Yes


3G 2 US 101 Atherton Avenue

Sonoma Co. Line 5.3 SB 319 5.31 60.9 A E Yes

4 State Route 131

Arterial 4A 18 Tiburon Blvd (SR

131)

Redwood Frontage

Road

Strawberry Drive 0.5 WB 79 1.31 26.9 A D No

5 Interstate 580 Freeway

5A 15 I-580 End of R-SR Bridge

Sir Francis Drake Blvd 3.3 (EB) WB 36 0.60 55.8 C E No

5B 14 I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Bellam Blvd 1.4 WB 86 1.43 55.8 C E Yes


September 26, 2013

Table 5b: 2013 Study Roadway Segment Monitoring Results (PM LOS) – Southbound / Westbound Direction (continued)

No Corridor Name

Corridor Type No

Old Seg. No


Avg. Time (Sec)

Avg. Time (Min)

Avg. Speed (mph)

LOS Result

LOS Standard


6

Novato Blvd / South

Novato Blvd

Arterial

6A 3 Novato Blvd

San Marin Drive

Eucalyptus Ave 0.4 WB 64 1.06 25.3 A D No

6B 24 Novato Blvd

Grant Avenue Diablo Ave 0.7 SB 192 3.20 22.3 B D No

6C 4 South

Novato Blvd

Sunset Parkway US 101 1.1 SB 128 2.14 29.1 A D No

7 Bel Marin

Keys Boulevard

Arterial 7A 6 Bel Marin Keys Blvd US 101 Commercial

Blvd 0.3 SB 27 0.45 21.6 B D Yes


8A 22 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Willow Ave

Butterfield Road 0.2 WB 55 0.91 19.3 C D Yes

8B 9 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

San Anselmo

Ave

Red Hill Ave 1.1 WB 208 3.46 20.2 B D Yes

8C 23 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Toussin Ave College Ave 0.3 WB 56 0.93 19.9 C D Yes

8D 12 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

College Ave

Wolfe Grade 0.6 WB 94 1.56 24.2 B D Yes

8E 16 Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 Larkspur

Landing Cir 0.4 WB 169 2.82 10.7 D D Yes

9 Red Hill

Ave / 2nd St / 3rd St

Arterial

9A 10 Red Hill Avenue


Hildale Drive 0.4 WB 158 2.63 13.1 C D No

9B 26 2nd Street Marquard Ave/4th

St US 101 0.8 WB One-way Street D No

9C 27 3rd Street US 101 Marquard

Ave / 4th St 0.8 WB 215 3.59 18.4 C D No

10

Bridgeway / 2nd St / Alexander

Ave

Arterial 10A 20

Bridgeway / 2nd St /

Alexander Ave

Gate 5 Gate 6 0.2 SB 28 0.47 25.6 A D No


September 26, 2013

Table 6: Historic LOS Trends – PM Peak Direction Old

Segment No.

Segment Description 2003 (Old

Method)

2005 (Old

Method) 2006 2008 2010 2012 LOS

Standard Grandfathered

Status No Street Name From To

25 1A Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Tennessee

Valley NA NA NA B B C D No

19 1B Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)

Northern Avenue Almonte Blvd C F B A A B D Yes

1 1C Shoreline Hwy (SR 1)

Sir Francis Drake Blvd Pt. Reyes A A A A A A D No

5 2A State Route 37 US 101 Atherton Avenue C C A B A A E No

21 3A US 101 North of Golden Gate Bridge

Spencer Avenue C C A A D E E No

17 3B US 101 Tiburon Blvd

(SR 131) Tamalpais Dr C F F F F F E Yes

NB HOV -- -- A A D F E Yes

13 3C US 101 Sir Francis Drake

Blvd I-580 F F E E D D E Yes

NB HOV -- -- -- -- A D E Yes

11 3D US 101 I-580 Mission

Avenue F F F E E D E Yes

NB HOV -- -- -- -- A D E Yes

8 3E US 101 Mission Avenue N. San Pedro

Road F F C F E D E Yes

NB HOV -- -- -- -- A C E Yes

7 3F US 101 Frietas Parkway Lucas Valley

Road C E A A D B E Yes

NB HOV -- -- A A A B E Yes

2 3G US 101 Atherton Ave Sonoma County Line F D E F E E E Yes

18 4A Tiburon Blvd (SR 131)

Redwood Frontage Road

Strawberry Drive C C A A B A D No


September 26, 2013

Old Segment

No.

Segment Description 2003 (Old

Method)

2005 (Old

Method) 2006 2008 2010 2012 LOS

Standard Grandfathered

Status No Street Name From To

15 5A I-580 End of

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

Sir Francis Drake Blvd E C F E A E E No

14 5B I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Bellam Blvd B F E E D E E Yes

3 6A Novato Blvd San Marin Drive Eucalyptus Ave A A B C A B D No

24 6B Novato Blvd Grant Avenue Diablo Ave C E C B C B D No

4 6C South Novato Blvd Sunset Parkway US 101 A A A A A B D No

6 7A Bel Marin Keys Blvd US 101 Commercial

Blvd C C B C B B D Yes

22 8A Sir Francis Drake Blvd Willow Ave Butterfield

Road F F D F D C D Yes

9 8B Sir Francis Drake Blvd San Anselmo Ave Red Hill Ave E E C C C C D Yes

23 8C Sir Francis Drake Blvd Toussin Ave College Ave F F C D D D D Yes

12 8D Sir Francis Drake Blvd College Ave Wolfe Grade C B C A B B D Yes

16 8E Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 Larkspur

Landing Cir F C F E C D D Yes

10 9A Red Hill Avenue Sir Francis Drake Blvd Hildale Drive D C B D D C D No

26 9B 2nd Street Marquard Ave/ 4th St US 101 NA NA NA NA C C D No

27 9C 3rd Street US 101 Marquard Ave / 4th St NA NA NA NA C C D No

20 10A Bridgeway/Second St / Alexander Ave Gate 5 Gate 6 C B B C D C D No

Source: KHA (2013).


September 26, 2013

It should be noted that prior to the 2007 CMP, the methodology for monitoring LOS was conducted by using the volume to capacity (V/C ratio), as described in Table 2. Since then, the methodology has shifted from using traffic volumes to measuring the amount of time traveled through a segment, reflecting newer LOS calculation methods now recommended and performed by the Highway Capacity Manual printed in 2003. Table 6 identifies the years when the previous method of calculating LOS by travel time runs was used. Table 7 below shows actions that should be taken on each segment to remedy deficient LOS, based on monitoring results. This table classifies the CMP segments into four categories depending on their grandfathered status and whether they are meeting the established LOS standard based on the monitoring. The table is organized as follows:

• Non-grandfathered roadway segments (13 in total) that meet the LOS standard and therefore no action is needed.

• Grandfathered roadway segments currently operating at acceptable levels of service (13 in total). These roadway segments should continue to be monitored and made subject to the requirements of the CMP. Improvement plans may not be necessary at this time but may be required in the future.

• Grandfathered roadway segments currently operating below the LOS standard. One

segment is classified this way: Northbound US 101 from Tiburon Boulevard. Delay at this location is somewhat related to upstream traffic weaving conflicts between Tamalpais Avenue and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The segment contains a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane that offers drivers an alternative to mixed-flow congestion created by single-occupant drivers. While no action is required, TAM may wish to monitor the congestion and determine if operational strategies such as ramp metering may be needed to remedy the condition.

• Non-grandfathered roadways that currently operate below the LOS standards. No

segments fall into this category. Any roadway segments in this category should be highlighted for future evaluation, and then TAM should decide whether deficiency plans or improvement plans are required.

Given that no segments are in the final category, no jurisdiction is considered out of conformance at this time.


September 26, 2013

Table 7: Actions Recommended by CMP Roadway Segment Segment Description 2012

Results LOS

Standard Action No Street Name From To

Non-Grandfathered, LOS Standard Met

1A Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) US 101 Tennessee Valley C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

1C Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Sir Francis Drake Blvd Pt. Reyes A D Within LOS Standard; No Action

2A State Route 37 US 101 Atherton Avenue A E Within LOS Standard; No Action

3A US 101 North of Golden Gate Bridge Spencer Avenue E E Within LOS Standard; No Action

4A Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) Redwood Frontage Road Strawberry Drive A D Within LOS Standard; No Action

5A I-580 End of R-SR Bridge Sir Francis Drake Blvd E E Within LOS Standard; No Action

6A Novato Blvd San Marin Drive Eucalyptus Ave B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

6B Novato Blvd Grant Avenue Diablo Ave B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

6C South Novato Blvd Sunset Parkway US 101 B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

9A Red Hill Avenue Sir Francis Drake Blvd Hildale Drive C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

9B 2nd Street Marquard Ave/4th St US 101 C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

9C 3rd Street US 101 Marquard Ave/4th St C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

10A Bridgeway / Second St / Alexander Ave Gate 5 Gate 6 C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

Grandfathered, LOS Standard Met

1B Shoreline Hwy (SR 1) Northern Avenue Almonte Blvd B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

3C US 101 Sir Francis Drake Blvd I-580 D E Within LOS Standard; No Action

3D US 101 I-580 Mission Avenue D E Within LOS Standard; No Action

3E US 101 Mission Avenue N. San Pedro Road E E Within LOS Standard; No Action


September 26, 2013

Segment Description 2012 Results

LOS Standard Action

No Street Name From To

Non-Grandfathered, LOS Standard Met

3F US 101 Frietas Parkway Lucas Valley Road B E Within LOS Standard; No Action

3G US 101 Atherton Ave Sonoma County Line E E Within LOS Standard; No Action

5B I-580 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Bellam Blvd E E Within LOS Standard; No Action

7A Bel Marin Keys Blvd US 101 Commercial Blvd B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

8A Sir Francis Drake Blvd Willow Ave Butterfield Road C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

8B Sir Francis Drake Blvd San Anselmo Ave Red Hill Ave C D Within LOS Standard; No Action

8C Sir Francis Drake Blvd Toussin Ave College Ave D D Within LOS Standard; No Action

8D Sir Francis Drake Blvd College Ave Wolfe Grade B D Within LOS Standard; No Action

8E Sir Francis Drake Blvd US 101 Larkspur Landing Cir D D Within LOS Standard; No Action

Grandfathered, LOS Standard Not Met (No Deficiency Plan required)

3B US 101 Tiburon Blvd (SR 131) Tamalpais Dr F E Improvements

Being Considered


September 26, 2013

3. System Performance

Purpose and Intent of Legislation The California Government Code Section 65089(b)(2) requires each Congestion Management Agency to establish performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance (in addition to LOS presented in Chapter 2) for the movement of people and goods. Consistent with past CMPs, performance measures are included in this CMP and described in this chapter. The measures should not be confused with “standards,” as no level of performance is required. Rather, measures simply indicate the levels of performance at a given time. The first part of this section highlights the current transit system in Marin County. The next section highlights bicycle and pedestrian programs. Lastly, four additional performance measures are provided (reported in this and prior CMPs):

Peak-Hour Travel Time Person Throughput Jobs/Housing Balance Mode of Access to Work

The above performance measures help determine whether the goals of the CMP are being met: supporting mobility, air quality, land-use, and economic objectives. The measures are also used in the development of any necessary Capital Improvement Program, deficiency plans, and the land-use analysis program. The 2012 Transportation System Performance Monitoring Report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates for TAM in March 2013 contains detailed information on the transportation system, and is a key source in describing these measures. Current Transit Operations in Marin County The transit network within Marin County comprises a variety of services. These include:

General public transit bus service for both inter- and intra-county trips General public ferry service, serving trips between Marin County and San Francisco Specialized transit services aimed at serving the needs of the senior and disabled population

in the County, including dial-a-ride, paratransit, and wheelchair accessible taxis Privately operated services, providing targeting service between specific locations, such as

the service between Marin County and San Francisco International Airport The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) service will likely be added as a CMP transit service. As of August 2013, construction has begun on the service’s Initial Operating Segment (IOS) between the cities of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County and San Rafael in Marin County. The IOS is expected to be completed in late 2015 or early 2016. The following sections provide a brief description of the transit services provided for inter-county and intra-county transit travel. In addition, bus route information, headways, and overall transit ridership are summarized in each section.


September 26, 2013

Marin Transit

Marin Transit is the agency responsible for local transit service within Marin County. Marin Transit has responsibility for local transit services and contracts with other operators for three types of fixed route services within the county: large bus fixed route, shuttle, and rural service. Contracted providers include Golden Gate Transit, MV Transportation, and Marin Airporter. Marin Transit also contracts with Whistlestop Wheels to provide paratransit and dial-a-ride service within Marin County. Table 8 summarizes the regularly scheduled Marin Transit services. Marin Transit also operates the Marin Access Mobility Management Center, which is a one-call, transportation information and referral service, focused on meeting the mobility needs of Marin’s older adults, disabled persons, and low-income residents. Transit service provided within Marin County by Marin Transit via contractors includes:

• Local Service. Ten routes operate entirely within Marin County on weekdays, with limited weekend service, contracted through Golden Gate Transit. An additional ten routes are operated as school-focused service on school days only, as detailed below. Since the 2011 CMP, Marin Transit has ceased operations on local Route 52, replaced Route 19 with a school-focused route and a shuttle route, and replaced Route 51 with two school-focused routes and one shuttle route.

• School Service. Ten routes provide limited service on school days in Marin County, as well

as select trips on Routes 17 and 23. Routes 113, 117, 125, 126, 127, and 139 have operated continuously since the 2011 CMP, while four new routes (115, 119, 151, and 154) have been added, and one route (114) has ceased operations.

• Recreational Services. A shuttle service, Route 66, operates between Muir Woods and

Sausalito. A supplemental route (66F) provides intermediate service via Marin City. Shuttle schedules are adapted to weekend and seasonal recreational travel demand. Marin Transit contracts with Golden Gate Transit to operate Route 66, in partnership with the National Park Service between May and October.

• West Marin Stagecoach. Marin Transit contracts with MV Transportation to operate the

West Marin Stagecoach with two shuttle service routes (Routes 61 and 68) in West Marin. The Stagecoach provides weekday and weekend service to area residents. Since the 2011 CMP, Marin Transit has ceased operations on the Route 62 shuttle.

• Community Shuttle Service. Marin Transit contracts with Marin Airporter to operate six shuttle bus routes providing limited service: Strawberry/Tiburon (Route 219); Marin City/College of Marin (Route 222); Santa Venetia/San Rafael (Route 233); Hamilton Theater/San Marin Drive in Novato (Route 251); Indian Valley Campus/San Rafael (Route 257); and San Rafael/Novato (Route 259). Routes 219, 251 and 257 are new shuttle routes that have been added since the previous CMP update. It should also be noted that Marin Airporter provides airport shuttle service between Marin County and San Francisco Airport as its primary business, separate from Marin Transit operations. In addition,


September 26, 2013

Sonoma Airporter provides airport shuttle service between Marin County and Oakland airport.

• Marin Access Paratransit. Marin Transit contracts with Whistlestop Wheels to provide paratransit services described later in this chapter. Whistlestop Wheels operates the Novato Health Express, a medical-only shuttle service for elderly and disabled residents in the Novato area provided in cooperation with Novato Community Hospital (a Sutter Health affiliate) and also the Hamilton Shuttle (which is not managed by Marin Transit).

• Novato Dial-a-ride. Marin Transit contracts with Whistlestop Wheels to provide a dial-a-ride shuttle bus service that provides curb-to-curb pick-up and drop-off service available to all residents in the Novato service area.

Table 8: Marin Transit Routes/Peak Headways for Fixed-Route Service

As of August 2011 As of August 2013

Route # Route Type: Description

Approx. Headways (minutes)



17 Local: San Rafael to Marin City 30-60 17 Local: San Rafael to Sausalito 30

19 Local: Tiburon to Marin City 48-60 19 No longer in service - Replaced by routes 119 & 219 -

22 Local: San Rafael to Sausalito 24-30 22 Local: San Rafael to Marin City 30

23 Local: San Rafael to Manor (Fairfax) 4-30 23 Local: San Rafael to White

Hill MS 60

28 Local: San Rafael to Manor (Fairfax) 60 (weekend)

29 Local: San Rafael to San Anselmo 30-60 29 Local: San Rafael to Manor

(Fairfax) 30-60

35 Local: San Rafael to Canal Area 6-20 35 Local: San Rafael to Canal

Area 5-30

36 Local: San Rafael to Marin City 30 36 Local: San Rafael to Marin

City 26-30

45 Local: San Rafael Kaiser Hospital North Gate 30 45 Local: San Rafael Kaiser

Hospital North Gate 28-60

49 Local: San Rafael to Ignacio (Novato) 60 49 Local: San Rafael to Novato

(Redwood Blvd & Olive Ave) 60

51 Local: San Marin to Novato (Ignacio) 60 51

No longer in service - Replaced by routes 151, 154, 251

-

52 Local: Novato to San Rafael 60 52 No longer in service -

61 West Marin Stagecoach: Manzanita Park (Marin City) to Bolinas

160 61 West Marin Stagecoach: Donahue & Terners (Marin City) to Bolinas

160-205 (off-peak)

62 West Marin Stagecoach: San Rafael to Stinson Beach

120 (Tues/Thur/

Sat) 62 No longer in service -

68 West Marin Stagecoach: Inverness to Fairfax 180 68 West Marin Stagecoach:

Inverness to San Rafael 75-185

(off-peak)


September 26, 2013






66 Muir Woods Shuttle: Manzanita Park (Marin City) to Muir Woods

20-30 (weekends) 66/66F Muir Woods Shuttle:

Sausalito to Muir Woods

66: 10-20 (weekend) 66F: 25-65 (weekend)

71 Local: Novato to Marin City 30 71 Local: Novato to Marin City 26-34

113 School: Paradise Cay to Redwood HS

1 run (AM) 4 runs (PM) 113 School: Paradise Cay to

Redwood HS

7:26 am, 2 runs 2:45 pm, 2 runs 3:30 pm, 2 runs

114 School: Redwood HS to San Rafael

Summer: 1 run (AM) 4 runs (PM)

114 No longer in service -

115 School: Sausalito Ferry to St. Hilary School 7:03am, 3:10pm

117 School: East Corte Madera to Hall MS

2 runs (AM) 2 runs (PM) 117 School: East Corte Madera to

Hall MS

7:47 am, 2 runs 3:10 pm, 2 runs

119 School: Tiburon to Redwood HS

6:58 am, 2 runs 2:45 pm, 2 runs 3:30 pm, 2 runs

125 School: San Anselmo Hub/Drake HS to Lagunitas 2 runs (PM) 125 School: San Anselmo

Hub/Drake HS to Lagunitas 3:28 pm, 1 run

126 School: San Rafael to San Domenico School

2 runs (AM) 4 runs (PM) 126 School: San Rafael to San

Domenico School 7:43 am, 2 runs

127 School: Sleepy Hollow to White Hill School

4 runs (AM) 2 runs (PM) 127 School: Sleepy Hollow to

White Hill School 6:57 am, 4 runs 2:32 pm, 2 runs

139 School: Terra Linda HS to Lucas Valley

1 run (AM) 1 run (PM) 139 School: Terra Linda HS to

Lucas Valley 7:12 am, 1 run 3:30 pm, 1 run

151 School: Hamilton (Novato) to San Marin HS

6:20 am, 2 runs 2:08 pm, 2 runs

154 School: Olive Ave & Olive Ct. (Novato) to San Marin HS/Sinaloa MS

7:31 am, 1 run 2:20 pm, 1 run

219 Shuttle: Strawberry to Tiburon 23-32

222 Shuttle: Marin City to Marin General Hospital/College of Marin

60 222 Shuttle: Marin City to Marin General Hospital/College of Marin

60

233 Shuttle: Santa Venetia to San Rafael 60 233 Shuttle: Santa Venetia to San

Rafael 60

251 Shuttle: Hamilton Theater to San Carlos & San Marin (Novato)

60

257 Shuttle: Indian Valley Campus to San Rafael 60

259 Shuttle: Marin Civic Center to Marinwood 60 259 Shuttle: San Rafael to

Redwood & Olive (Novato) 60

Sources: Marin Transit website (2013). DKS (2011).


September 26, 2013

Golden Gate Transit

Golden Gate Transit operates transit services between Marin County and Sonoma, San Francisco, and Contra Costa Counties. Golden Gate Transit is one of three operating divisions of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Additional bus service provided directly by Golden Gate Transit connects Marin County to other parts of the region. Inter-county bus routes that operate partly inside Marin County are listed in Table 9, and include the following services:

• Transbay Basic Service. Basic service routes operate all day, seven days a week, providing wheelchair accessible trunk-line service between the Transbay Terminal and Civic Center in San Francisco or Richmond BART, and various suburban centers within Marin and Sonoma Counties. They provide the “backbone” service within Marin County and between Marin and neighboring counties. The seven routes are 10, 40/42, 70/71, 80, and 101.

• Transbay Commute Service. This service provides 17 routes that operate on weekdays

except holidays. Most services connect residential neighborhoods within Marin County and the San Francisco Financial District and Civic Center employment centers during the AM and PM commute periods. Other service connects Sonoma County with Marin County and San Francisco. Commute service is generally operated in the peak direction during commute hours only, and is not run at all during the midday and off-peak periods. One Commute route, 73, has been discontinued since 2011.

Table 9: Regional Golden Gate Bus Transit Routes and Peak Headways




Route # Route Type: Description Approx.

Headways (minutes)

2 Commute: SF to Marin Headlands 15-30 2 Commute: SF to Marin Headlands 15-36

4 Commute: Mill Valley to SF 9-10 4 Commute: Mill Valley to SF 5-15

8 Commute: Tiburon to SF 2 runs(AM) 1 run (PM) 8 Commute: Tiburon to SF

6:32 am; 7:23 am; 4:54 pm

10 Basic: Strawberry to SF 30-60 10 Basic: Strawberry to SF 29-57

18 Commute: College of Marin to SF 11-30 18 Commute: College of Marin to SF 14-33

24 Commute: Lagunitas to SF 8-30 24 Commute: Manor (Fairfax) to SF 5-25

27 Commute: Sleepy Hollow to SF 14-30 27 Commute: Sleepy Hollow to SF 5-33

38 Commute: Terra Linda to SF 30 38 Commute: Terra Linda to SF 24-32

40/42 Basic: San Rafael to Del Norte BART weekday 30-60 40/42 Basic: San Rafael to Del Norte

BART weekday 19-43

42 Basic: San Rafael to Del Norte BART weekend 60 42 Basic: San Rafael to Del Norte

BART weekend 60

44 Commute: Marinwood to SF 2 runs(AM) 2 runs (PM) 44 Commute: Marinwood to SF 60

54 Commute: San Marin to SF 9-30 54 Commute: San Marin to SF 10-33

56 Commute: Novato to SF 30 56 Commute: Novato to SF 18-33


September 26, 2013




Route # Route Type: Description Approx.

Headways (minutes)

58 Commute: SF to Novato 30 58 Commute: SF to Novato 25-33

70/71 Basic: Novato to SF 3-30 70/71 Basic: Novato to SF 4-30 72/72

X Commute: Santa Rosa to SF 10-30 72/72X Commute: Santa Rosa to SF 6-30

73 Commute: Santa Rosa to SF 45-60 73 No longer in Service -

74 Commute: Santa Rosa to SF 30 74 Commute: Cotati to SF 27-63

76 Commute: East Petaluma to SF 25-30 76 Commute: East Petaluma to SF 27-31

80 Basic: Santa Rosa to SF (evening) 60 80 Basic: Santa Rosa to SF 5:51 pm

92 Commute: Marin City to SF 30-60 92 Commute: Marin City to SF 60

93 Commute: GG Toll Plaza to SF Civic Center 10-30 93 Commute: GG Toll Plaza to SF

Civic Center 10-30

97 Commute: Larkspur Ferry to SF 1 run (AM) 97 Commute: Larkspur Ferry to SF 7:55 am; 8:25 am

101 Basic: Santa Rosa to SF 30-60 101/101X Basic: Santa Rosa to SF 34-60 Sources: Golden Gate Transit Website (2013). DKS (2011).

Ferry Services

Three organizations provide Ferry service in Marin County:

• Golden Gate Ferry Service. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District operates ferry services from Larkspur and Sausalito to San Francisco via conventional and high-speed ferries. Headways between the two destinations and San Francisco are 20 and 55 minutes during weekday commute periods.

• Blue and Gold Fleet. The Blue and Gold Fleet operates both commuter and recreational

ferry service from Tiburon and Sausalito to Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. Blue and Gold also provides recreational service between Angel Island and San Francisco, Oakland, and Vallejo.

• Angel Island Tiburon Ferry. The Angel Island Tiburon Ferry operates recreational service

between Angel Island and Downtown Tiburon. Weekend (Saturday and Sunday) headways are one hour from April to October and 1-2 hours from November through March. Weekday headways are generally 1-3 hours between March and October, with ferries by reservation only from November through February.

Summary of Fixed Route Services and Boardings

The transit routes managed by Marin Transit are routinely monitored for performance. The recent dedication of additional resources has led to an expansion of local transit service, which in turn has increased local boardings. These trends are illustrated in Table 10, which also shows ridership trends in Golden Gate Transit Bus and Ferry Operations.


September 26, 2013

As the table shows, demand for the basic and commuter bus services into and out of San Francisco has increased slightly in the last year after a pronounced decline during the recent recessionary period, and Golden Gate Transit has correspondingly maintained most of its bus services to meet the demand after previous service reductions. Ferry Service and Marin Transit local service have experienced increasing ridership the last two fiscal years. Finally, shuttle and West Marin Stagecoach services have continued to see significant increases in ridership. Table 10: Transit Ridership Trends in Marin County

Fiscal Year Annual Revenue Hours Annual Boardings Golden Gate Basic and Commuter Service 2007-08 186,959 4,050,191 2008-09 185,589 3,918,720 2009-10 181,915 3,382,098 2010-11 175,945 3,398,098 2011-12 210,741 3,513,639 Golden Gate Ferry Service 2007-08 9,854 1,980,010 2008-09 9,632 1,949,035 2009-10 9,583 1,922,095 2010-11 9,488 2,031,219 2011-12 13,498 2,195,414 Marin Transit Sponsored Local Service 2007-08 113,554 3,259,037 2008-09 122,907 3,189,321 2009-10 121,875 3,085,480 2010-11 115,236 3,113,544 2011-12 114,076 3,119,765 Marin Transit Shuttles and West Marin Routes (including Novato Dial-A-Ride) 2007-08 17,828 120,541 2008-09 21,558 141,899 2009-10 22,989 142,004 2010-11 21,964 153,993 2011-12 25,058 194,421

Sources: Marin Transit Staff reports (2013). KHA (2013). DKS (2011)

Specialized Transit Services

Marin Access Paratransit. Marin Transit contracts with Whistlestop Wheels to provide local paratransit services that are available during the same hours and days of the week as comparable local and inter-county fixed-route, non-commute bus services. The service is a door-to-door ridesharing program that has approximately 40 lift-equipped vehicles available for use. Approximately 125,700 annual passenger trips are provided on Marin Access Paratransit service. Inter-county paratransit service is provided seven days a week, under an agreement between Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit. The inter-county service area includes Sonoma, San Francisco, and Contra Costa counties in addition to Marin County. Statistics for this service are included in Table 11. The demand for paratransit service has grown in recent years as more Marin County residents have become eligible for the service given the ongoing aging of the population, and as more medical providers and residents become aware of paratransit service.


September 26, 2013

Table 11: Marin Access Paratransit Performance Statistics, FY 2007 to FY 2012 Fiscal Year Annual Revenue Hours Annual Passenger Trips

2007-08 45,390 99,064

2008-09 46,968 99,808

2009-10 48,322 105,669

2010-11 61,656 118,097

2011-12 56,024 125,652 Sources: Marin Transit Staff Reports (2013). DKS (2011).

Volunteer Driver. Marin Transit manages two Volunteer Driver programs for seniors who have difficulty using fixed route or paratransit services – 1) the Safe Transport and Reimbursement (STAR) Program operated by Whistlestop Wheels in Eastern Marin, and 2) the TripTrans West Marin Volunteer Driver Program operated by West Marin Senior Services in Western Marin. Both programs provide drivers with mileage reimbursements for their services. During the 2011-12 fiscal year, the volunteer driver program operated for 8,456 revenue hours and served 5,624 unlinked passengers during weekday service. Catch-a-Ride. Marin Transit manages the Catch-A-Ride program, which allows eligible Marin County residents to receive a discounted ride in taxis and other licensed vehicles throughout Marin County. To be considered eligible for the program, participants must be a resident of Marin County and at least 80 years of age, at least 60 years of age and unable to drive, or be eligible for paratransit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The program pays for the first $14 of each one-way ride ($18 for low income riders), with the fare based on the mileage of the trip, rather than the meter rate. Given the program’s launch in October 2012, full annual data are not yet available. Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs TAM and other jurisdictions within Marin County are committed to non-motorized transportation programs. This commitment extends to all levels of planning and funding, including a portion of TAM-administered Measure A transportation sales tax funds. Strategy 4 of the Measure A Strategic Plan specifically designates shares to help fund Safe Routes to Schools, Crossing Guards, and Safe Pathways to School programs. In addition, Strategy 3 funds are available for local transportation infrastructure projects, such as bicycle and pedestrian projects. In 2010, Marin County voters passed Measure B, which increased the annual vehicle registration fee (VRF) by $10 to provide an additional, dedicated local funding source for transportation improvements and programs within the County. Element 1 of the Measure B Strategic Plan designates 40 percent VRF funds toward the maintenance of local streets, including 5 percent for Class I bicycle and pedestrian pathway maintenance for municipalities that have adopted a Complete Streets policy. Element 3 of the Strategic Plan allocates 25 percent VRF funding toward reducing congestion and pollution, including school safety (School Crossing Guard Program) and congestion reduction (Safe Routes to Schools, Street Smarts and School Pool). Marin County also participated in the Federally-funded Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot (NTPP) Program as one of four demonstration localities nationwide. This project, funded by Section 1807 of the Federally-authorized SAFETEA-LU legislation, became a national model by


September 26, 2013

providing a way to measure the performance and results of investments in the local bicycle/pedestrian system. Recently completed planning studies funded by the NTPP include:

• Mill Valley-Corte Madera Corridor Study • Las Gallinas/Miller Creek Bike & Pedestrian Improvement Study • San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study • Tiburon Bay Trail Gap Closure Study • Annual Countywide bicycle and pedestrian monitoring counts, most recently collected for

TAM’s 2012 Transportation System Monitoring Report. Highway projects in Marin County also consider bicycle and pedestrian needs in their design and construction. Active elements for bicycle and pedestrian needs are included in these recent projects:

• US 101 HOV Gap Closure Project through San Rafael (completed) • US 101 Marin/Sonoma Narrows project (under construction) • 580/101 Interchange (Bellam Boulevard and Francisco Boulevard E.) – Phase 1 completed.

Marin County benefits from funding by Regional Measure 2, passed by Bay Area voters in 2004. These projects include:

• Greenbrae Corridor Improvement Project • Full funding of the Cal Park Hill Tunnel Project (completed) • Design and Phase 1 construction of the Central Marin Ferry Connector Project across Sir

Francis Drake Boulevard • Safe Routes to Transit grant to San Rafael for a multi-use connector between Lincoln Hill

Path and Downtown Transit Center (Puerto Suello Hill path completed, transit center connector in design)

Additional funding of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Marin County are provided through targeted funding sources, including:

• Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) • Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 • Regional Bicycle Program Funds • Measure A County 1/2-cent Sales Tax • Measure B County $10 Vehicle Registration Fee • Additional Federal sources included but not limited to Federal Land Highway Funds; the

Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program; and the Recreational Trails Program.

As part of these programs, local jurisdiction staff identified some of the significant contributions to recent and underway local pedestrian and bicycle projects. Highlights are summarized on the following page. These include Measure A Safe Routes to School programs, such as Safe Pathway projects, education programs in schools, and crossing guards.


September 26, 2013

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects and Programs by Jurisdiction

Belvedere • Ongoing ADA accessibility improvements to renovate walk path along San Rafael Avenue

from Tiburon Boulevard to West Shore Road. • Installed new bike racks in Tom Price Park and in front of City Hall.

Corte Madera

• Re-established a Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee made up of a Town Council Member and six bicycle and pedestrian advocates.

• Awarded a grant from the state Bicycle Transportation Account to construct a Class I Pathway from the High Canal Bridge along the canal to its intersection with Lakeside Drive. This project was proposed in the Town’s current Bicycle Transportation Plan and is currently being designed for construction in the spring of 2014.

• The Town’s 2013 Pavement Improvements Slurry Seal project (Measure A and B) is currently underway and will add Class III bikeway with sharrows as proposed in the Town’s current Bicycle Transportation Plan.

• The Town’s 2013 Pavement Improvement Overlays project will overlay and reconfigure Class III bike way and increase pavement path space on the uphill side of Corte Madera Avenue from near First Street to the southern Town border. The existing lanes will be narrowed and moved to the downhill side to increase the uphill path and sharrows will be added as proposed in the Town’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. This project will begin construction in September 2013.

• Paradise Drive Bikeway Extension (Safe Pathways to School) project will be designed and constructed in coordination with other road improvements required of private projects currently in the development process.

• Countywide Intersection Improvements for Bicycles (NTPP; Bicycle Detection) will install devices at several traffic signals along primary routes in Town.

• 2013 Alto Tunnel Study – the Alto Tunnel corridor is located in the incorporated areas of Mill Valley and Corte Madera. The County of Marin is the lead agency on this multi-jurisdictional corridor study and works closely with staff from Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Transportation Authority of Marin, and County Parks & Open Space. Surveyors are currently working along the Alto Tunnel corridor conducting boundary and easement surveys for the County.

• Bayside Trail Improvements • Tamalpais/Redwood/Corte Madera Ave Pavement Overlay and Street Improvements • Safe Routes to Schools, which includes 2 ADA‐accessibility ramps, sidewalk, and curb and

gutter • Tamalpais Drive Pedestrian/Bicycle Path to Low Canal Bridge Improvements, which

includes installation of pedestrian/ bicycle pathway • Mill Valley to Corte Madera Bicycle & Pedestrian Corridor Study: In September 2012,

TAM approved a grant to Marin County to implement portions of Segments 2A and 2B along unincorporated Lomita Drive. Construction is expected in mid to late 2013.

• Sandra Marker Trail ADA Connection, which includes two ADA‐accessible concrete ramps from William Avenue along the north side (Larkspur property) and Apache Road along the south side (Corte Madera property)


September 26, 2013

Fairfax • Fairfax Spine Project, awarded TFCA funding in FY 2011-12. • Addition of a Class II (on-street, striped) bicycle lane on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

eastbound between Olema Road and Claus Drive. A contract was recently awarded and construction is anticipated to start September 2013.

• Sidewalk installation on west side of Pastori Avenue between Sir Francis Drake and Center Boulevard. This project provides a continuous sidewalk connection to existing sidewalk on Center Boulevard and beyond to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, where is there is commercial retail development (completed 2011).

Larkspur • The Bicycle/Pedestrian Route from Cal Park Hill to Sir Francis Drake Overcrossing was

awarded to TFCA funding in FY 2011-12. • Sandra Marker Trail and ADA Pathway Project (funding: SR2; completed) • Multiuse Pathway between Doherty Drive and Heatherwood Park (funding: TAM;

completed) • Elm Avenue Stairway Project (funding: NTPP; completed) • Post Street Stairway Project (funding: NTPP; completed) • Citywide Signing & Striping (funding: Measure A; completed)

Mill Valley

• Completed engineering design for the Safe Routes to School Cycle 9 project that involves traffic calming improvements at all 5 Mill Valley schools. The project involves construction of bulb-outs, a new crosswalk, ADA ramps, and pedestrian only signal phase at the intersection of Elm Avenue and E. Blithedale Ave (Park Elementary School); installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Almonte Blvd (High School); installation of speed feedback sign on Miller Avenue; installation of high visibility crosswalks, pavement markings, and signage at all other schools. Construction will take place summer 2014.

• Completed engineering design for the Transportation Enhancement project that involves the construction of sidewalk and bike path on Sycamore Avenue between Camino Alto and Bay Front Park. Construction will take place summer 2014.

• Completed engineering design for the Federal Safe Routes to School project that involves construction of multi-use path along east side of Camino Alto between Miller Avenue and Sycamore Avenue. Improvements also include installation of ADA ramps, high visibility crosswalks, signage, pavement markings, and bulb outs at the Miller/Camino Alto and Miller/Almonte intersections. Construction will take place summer 2014.

• Currently working on environmental review/funding/concept design for the Safe Routes to School program Cycle 10 project and the Highway Safety Improvement program (HSIP) cycle 5 project. The SR2S project involves construction of a bike lane on Miller Avenue between Almonte Blvd and Camino Alto and the HSIP project involves construction of bike lanes and sidewalk on Miller Avenue between Millwood Street and Sunnyside Ave. They are both part of the City-adopted Miller Avenue Streetscape Plan.

• 2013 Alto Tunnel Study – the Alto Tunnel corridor is in the incorporated areas of Mill Valley and Corte Madera. The County of Marin is the lead agency on this multi-jurisdictional corridor study and works closely with staff from Mill Valley, Corte Madera,


September 26, 2013

Transportation Authority of Marin, and County Parks & Open Space. Currently conducting boundary and easement surveys of the Alto Tunnel corridor.

• Completed a NTPP Project, which rehabilitated stairs off Mirabel Lane, off Molino Lane, off Marion Lane, off Alcatraz Lane, and off Magee Lane. This project also constructed new stairs off Molino Lane and off Wainwright Lane. Also completed construction of the 2007 Street Rehabilitation Project which included five ADA ramps at various intersections and installed 19 “Share The Road” pavement markers on Ashford Avenue.

• Pedestrian Safety Project that includes constructing sidewalk and ADA ramps on East Blithedale Ave. between East Ave. and Elm Ave., constructing sidewalk and ADA ramps on West Blithedale Ave. between Bigelow Ave. and Eldridge Avenue, and constructing sidewalk “bulb‐outs” and ADA ramps at the intersection of Lomita Drive & Ashford Avenue.

• Strawberry Point School pedestrian improvements • Various intersection improvements Citywide, including crosswalk striping

Novato

• Currently out to bid, the TDA funded Bel Marin Keys Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Rehabilitation project will repave approximately 2,600 lineal feet of class 1 bike path on the east side of US 101, between Hamilton Drive/Frosty Lane and Highway 37. The project may also include bollard path lighting, if the addition of the lighting bid alternate is within the budgeted amount for this project.

• A recent TFCA grant award will partially fund a Class I multi-use path along Nave Drive between Main Gate Drive and Bolling Circle providing safe access to Hamilton School and gymnasium and direct pedestrian connection from two active bus stops located at the Main Gate Drive and Bolling Circle intersections. Staff is currently determining appropriate additional funding prior to commencing preliminary design. Construction is anticipated for summer 2014.

• The Commuter Bike Connection project, funded by both Non Motorized Transportation Pilot Program and Transportation Enhancement funds was completed in December 2011, creating 3,200 lineal feet of new Class 1 bike path on the west side of Highway 101 from South Novato Boulevard to Enfrente Road.

• The Measure A Safe Pathways to Schools funded Indian Valley Road project was completed in late 2011, closing a sidewalk and Class II bike lane gap between Arthur Street and Hill Road.

• 2012 and 2013 Measure A local streets projects completed in Novato included installation of 70 new wheelchair ramps and approximately 18,000 square feet of uplifted sidewalk repair.

• Multiple street rehabilitation/improvements projects and SR2S‐Cycle 7 projects completed since 2008 involved installation and/or replacement of 165 ADA compliant curb ramps, removal and replacement of about 20,000 square feet of street‐tree‐damaged concrete sidewalks, and replacement of multiple bicycle loops.

• Various intersection improvements Citywide.

Ross • A new 4‐foot wide decomposed granite pathway was installed on Shady Lane to provide

safe travel for pedestrians, who formerly used a dirt path or the street.


September 26, 2013

• A new paved pedestrian pathway was installed along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and the repaved road was restriped to increase curb area for bicycles.

• The Town adopted an expanded Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and adopted a Complete Streets Resolution

• The Lagunitas Road bridge was reconstructed and now includes a wider pedestrian path that is separated from the roadway by a concrete railing. New sidewalk curb ramps were also installed in the area.

• “Narrow Bridge” warning signs were installed near the Shady Lane bridge and an ADA ramp was installed on the Shady Lane Bridge at Locust Avenue.

• An ADA ramp was installed at Ames Avenue to allow access to the Shady Lane pedestrian path, including a new crosswalk and pavement markings.

• A new guardrail and curb were installed on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard by the bridge. • New curb ramps were installed and a new crossing painted at Bolinas Avenue and Shady

Lane. • The Town is working on plans for intersection improvements for the junction of Sir

Francis Drake Boulevard and Lagunitas Road, right in front of Ross Town Hall and the Marin Art & Garden Center. The project will include a number of safety upgrades for an intersection frequently used by pedestrians.

San Anselmo

• Installed over 60 ADA curb ramps and installed/repaired sidewalks throughout San Anselmo on Saunders Avenue, Tamal Avenue, Park Drive, Yolanda Avenue, Alder Drive, Karl, Berlin, Brennfleck, Medway, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Scenic Road, San Anselmo Avenue, Tunestead, Ross, Bolinas, Crescent Road, Cedar, Woodland, Richmond, and Sunnyside.

• Class III bike improvements consisting of stencils and red curb. • Installed sharrows on San Anselmo Avenue, Medway Road, Saunders Avenue, Park, Tamal,

and Taylor. • NTPP on Sir Francis Drake at Saunders and Madrone consisting of pedestrian warning

systems in pavement and overhead lights (completed). • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements at Greenfield / Butterfield intersection. • Various intersection and signing/striping improvements Townwide

San Rafael

• Terra Linda – North San Rafael Improvements, completed October 2012. • Pedestrian improvements across the Grand Avenue Bridge are funded and currently under

design as part of Phase 2 of the Francisco Boulevard East pedestrian project. • San Rafael Transit Center access improvements. • Completed pedestrian improvements on Happy Lane near Sun Valley Elementary School,

on Woodland Avenue near Laurel Dell Elementary School and at various intersections along Canal Street.

• Working with property owner to install the Northgate Mall Promenade bike path along Las Gallinas Avenue (partially complete) and with Caltrans to install mixed use sidewalk along Bellam Boulevard and a portion of Francisco Boulevard East. Phase 1 of the Francisco Boulevard East portion is complete.


September 26, 2013

• Completed two NTPP projects to install over two miles of Class II and III facilities in North San Rafael.

• Continued work on the design of two NTPP Projects: 1) Puerto Suello Hill Path‐Transit Center Connector and 2) the Mahon Creek Path‐Transit Center Connector Project. For the first project, the Puerto Suello Hill path has been completed, while the transit center is under design. The Mahon Creek project is also under design.

Sausalito

• The Bridgeway-to-Ferry Landing Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) Project was successfully constructed and accepted by the City in July 2012.

• City has designed, acquired environmental clearance for, and continues to work on right-of-way acquisition for the Filbert Steps NMTPP Project with assistance from the Marin County Department of Public Works.

• City was awarded STP/CMAQ funding administered by CalTrans for the Gate 6 Road/Bridgeway Intersection Improvements Project (CML 5098 (012)) to more safely and efficiently accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movements. Environmental scoping for the project was completed in January 2012 and the consultant selected has performed the preliminary investigation, developed alternative concepts to accomplish project objectives in coordination with City, Marin County and CalTrans. The City plans to issue the preliminary alternatives for public and stakeholder review in Fall 2013 and expects that design and construction will be completed in 2014.

• City was awarded a grant under the MTC OBAG (STP/CMAQ/TAP) to further develop plans to improve bicycle, pedestrian and motor vehicle safety and operations in the Bay Trail alignment of Alexander Avenue/South Street/Second Street and Richardson between the south City limits and Bridgeway to complement projects recently completed by the National Park Service and in planning by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District on Alexander Avenue in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It is anticipated that the work covered by that grant will be initiated in calendar 2014 following executing of a Funding Agreement.

• City was awarded a TFCA grant to construct bicycle improvements along a segment of Humboldt Avenue between Anchor and Bay Streets. The Funding Agreement was executed in October 2012 and design of the improvements has been completed. Construction following permitting is expected to be completed by Spring 2014.

• Owing to the expiration of the NTPP, funds for replacement of existing public steps, stairs and paths in the City are inadequate. It is anticipated that removal of barriers to accessibility (based primarily on user counts) will take priority over other discretionary, non-grant funded projects of this kind over the next five years.

• The City supported the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) in its successful Federal Transit Administration, Ferry Boat Discretionary Grant Program application for enhancement of the landside of Sausalito’s ferry passenger terminal to complement improvements planned for the waterside float by the District. The grant (awarded in late 2012) and matching funds will result in up to $4.25 million in improvements to areas of the City used by ferry patrons getting to the terminal or exiting ferries and heading to all points – almost all of these being improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. It is anticipated that an agreement between the City and the District will be executed this calendar year and that environmental assessment, permitting and design development will be initiated in calendar 2014.


September 26, 2013

• The City recently completed replacement of its downtown public restroom building including provision of code-compliant path of travel improvements to better serve the large numbers of visitors the City hosts during peak summer tourist activity.

• Modifications to the Plaza Viña del Mar in downtown Sausalito to improve access for persons with impaired mobility will begin in September 2013.

Tiburon

• Completed Bay Trail Gap Closure Feasibility Study in May 2012. The project would close a key gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail System, as well as Town and Marin County local and regional bike and pedestrian circulation systems. Limits are from McKegney Green to Strawberry Drive, including portions of Tiburon Boulevard and Greenwood Beach Road/Greenwood Cove Drive. The project will require coordination between the Town, County, Caltrans, and ABAG (which funded the feasibility study).

• Completed various bicycle signing and striping improvements. • Completed Del Mar School Safe Routes to School project • Completed NTPP project to rehabilitate three pedestrian access ways (steps, lanes, and

paths). Marin County

• Marin Sonoma Narrows Frontage Road Class II Bicycle Lanes Gap Completion - this project will widen the shoulders on San Antonio Road/Frontage Road to install Class II bicycle lanes from just north of the existing South San Antonio Road/US 101 (where the widening included in the first phase of the Marin Sonoma Narrows contract ends) to the County Limit at the southern end of the existing historic San Antonio Creek bridge. The proposed Class II facility will then connect to the Class I bicycle facility being constructed on the north side of San Antonio Creek which will be constructed with another Marin Sonoma Narrows first phase contract. The County is coordinating with Caltrans on the bicycle facilities to be constructed as part of this project. TFCA funding was awarded for this project in FY 2012-13.

• Bel Marin Keys Boulevard Class 2 Bicycle Lanes (TFCA Funding, 2011-12) • Miller Creek Road Class 2 Bicycle Lanes and Pedestrian Improvements (TFCA and Federal

Transportation Enhancement Funding) • Central Marin Ferry Connection (TAM) - two TFCA grants awarded in 2010-11 and 2011-

12) • Major Maintenance on Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway (TDA Article 3, 2011) • Marin-Sonoma Narrows Redwood Landfill Bicycle Pedestrian Facility (TDA Article 3,

2012) • Bicycle Plan Update (TAM - TDA Article 3, 2012) • Tam Junction Bicycle Access Improvements (TAM - TDA Article 3, 2013) • Several Safe Routes/Safe Pathways to Schools Projects completed, including Lomita Drive,

Las Gallinas Avenue, San Geronimo School, E. Strawberry Drive. • Completed Marin Avenue and Evergreen sidewalk projects. • Completed Tennessee Valley (now Charles McGlashan) Pathway project. • Added/widened shoulders on several West Marin roads, including Pt. Reyes-Petaluma

Road, Nicasio Valley Road, and Novato Boulevard. • Completed an expanded numbered bicycle route signage program in west Marin.


September 26, 2013

• Continued coordination with Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) on multiuse pathway planned as part of the future SMART rail system.

• Completed various bicycle signing and striping improvements. • Completed bicycle parking projects in various locations Countywide. • Completed Miller Creek/Las Gallinas Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Study

(Marinwood) • Completed San Quentin Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study

In addition to the above projects, the TAM Board also recently approved TFCA funding allocations for the following multimodal projects in FY 2013-14:

• Golden Gate Transit: Bicycle racks on buses • Marin County: Olive Avenue Class II Bicycle Lane Gap Closure • Mill Valley: Miller Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Closures • San Anselmo – Electric Assist Utility Bicycle for Town Staff

Bicycle / pedestrian projects and project components are also funded through other local funds. Measure A Strategy 3.1, for which funding is allocated to major roads and related infrastructure, includes allocations for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Over the last six fiscal years, approximately 18.4 percent of Measure A Strategy 3.1 allocations have gone to pedestrian projects, 17.9 percent to bicycle projects, and 0.4 percent to public transit projects. Measure A Strategic Plan’s Strategy 4 includes several Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) programs. The Marin SR2S program, one of the most successful in the country, is designed to reduce local congestion around schools by increasing the number of children walking, bicycling, taking transit, or carpooling to school. TAM’s SR2S strategy includes:

• Education and Encouragement programs that offer events, contests and promotional materials to encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. Programs that support carpooling and transit use are also provided to the schools.

• Crossing Guard program that provides trained crossing guards at key intersections

throughout Marin County. Use of crossing guards can lessen the reluctance parents may have in allowing their children to walk or bicycle to school.

• Safe Pathways is the capital improvement element of the SR2S program. It provides funding

for engineering; environmental clearance; and construction of pathway, street crossing, and sidewalk improvements for better and safer access to schools.

Local Jurisdictions Bicycle Plans

Marin County’s local jurisdictions have adopted Bicycle or Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plans with planned related infrastructure improvements. By reference, the Marin County CMP recognizes those plans and planned facilities. Individual bicycle and pedestrian improvements will be implemented as scheduled by local agencies, and as funding becomes available. Funding sources will vary, and include TFCA funds, as well as Measure A, Safe Routes to Schools, and other local funds.


September 26, 2013

Performance Measures Four additional performance measures described below allow TAM to further measure transportation system performance in Marin County. They are aggregate peak hour travel time, person throughout, jobs/housing Balance, and commute mode share.

Aggregate Peak Hour Travel Time

This performance measure describes the time required to travel through selected corridors on a variety of modes during commute peak hours. Given that single-occupant, high-occupant, and transit vehicles travel at different speeds, aggregate travel time between two points for all modes effectively describes system performance. To determine peak-hour travel times by single-occupant and high-occupant vehicles, travel time runs would be required for two given days at the peak hour in the peak direction. Transit schedules have been used to determine travel times via buses. For the Marin CMP, aggregate travel times have been developed for four segments:

1. US 101 between the Sonoma County line and the San Rafael Transit Center 2. US 101 between the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Rafael Transit Center 3. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between Butterfield Road and US 101 4. Red Hill Avenue from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the San Rafael Transit Center

Table 12 shows the results of the peak hour travel time monitoring. The samples for the AM peak hour were collected between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and the samples for the PM peak hour were collected between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. Auto and HOV travel times generally remained the same or slightly increased. With regard to the changes in bus travel times between 2010 and 2012, the 2012 Transportation System Monitoring Report noted the following:

• Measurements along US 101 between San Rafael Transit Center and the Sonoma County line were made to Novato in 2012, while in 2010 measurements were made to Petaluma, which is approximately 12 miles further north.

• Bus travel times along US 101 between San Rafael Transit Center and Golden Gate Bridge were similar between 2010 and 2012, except in the northbound direction during the PM peak. Travel time in this corridor reduced from 88 minutes to 53 minutes, with both travel times measured from the Golden Gate Bridge toll plaza to the San Rafael Transit Center.

• Sir Francis Drake Boulevard bus travel times between Butterfield Road and US 101 increased slightly (5 seconds in southbound AM and northbound PM peak directions) from 2010 to 2012. In 2012, an additional bus route (Marin Transit Route 29) served the corridor that was unavailable in 2010. Route 29 provides service along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in the northwest-bound direction in the AM peak.

• Red Hill Avenue bus travel times between Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and San Rafael Transit Center remained the same from 2010 to 2012.


September 26, 2013

Table 12: Corridor Peak Hour Travel Time Monitoring Results

2010 (minutes) 2012 (minutes)

Study Corridor Auto HOV Bus Auto HOV Bus

US 101 from San Rafael Transit

Center to Sonoma County

Line

AM NB 15 N/A 44A 16 N/A 25AA

SB 21 18 66A 20 19 32AA

PM NB 23 23 43A 23 22 32AA

SB 15 N/A 61A 17 N/A 29AA

US 101 from San Rafael Transit

Center to Golden Gate

Bridge

AM NB 11 N/A 45B 14 N/A 39B

SB 12 11 45C 13 12 49C

PM NB 20 14 88B 18 18 52B

SB 11 N/A 50C 16 N/A 53C

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard from

Butterfield Rd. to US 101

AM NWB 11 N/A N/A 13 N/A 36DD

SEB 9 N/A 24D 18 N/A 29E

PM NWB 16 N/A 18E 14 N/A 23E

SEB 18 N/A N/A 16 N/A N/A

Red Hill Avenue from Sir Francis

Drake Boulevard to San Rafael Transit

Center

AM NWB 5 N/A 13F 7 N/A 13F

SEB 5 N/A 13F 8 N/A 13F

PM NWB 9 N/A 13F 9 N/A 13F

SEB 6 N/A 13F 6 N/A 13F

Notes: A = Estimated based on commute bus Route 70 & 80 between San Rafael Transit Center and Petaluma Depot. B = Estimated based on commute bus Route 70 & 80 between San Rafael Transit Center and Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza. C = Estimated based on commute bus Route 70 & 80 between San Rafael Transit Center and SF Civic Center

(GG time is not Published) D = Estimated based on commute bus Route 24 between Bank and US 101/Lucky Drive Bus Pad. E = Estimated based on commute bus Route 24 between San Rafael Transit Center and US 101/Lucky Drive Bus Pad (Bank not a stop in NB PM). F = Estimated based on commute bus Route 23 between San Rafael Transit Center and SFD/Center Street Hub instead of the Butterfield. AA = Estimated based on commute bus Route 70 & 80 between San Rafael Transit Center and Novato-Redwood/Olive (Petaluma Depot Time is not published) DD = Estimated based on commute bus Route 29 between Eliseo Drive and Fairfax-Broadway/Bolinas.

Sources: KHA (2013). DKS (2011)

Person Throughput

The person throughput performance measure identifies the number of people, rather than vehicles, who are able to move through a given corridor during commute peak periods. As a combination of vehicle occupancy and level of service, this measure acknowledges that transit service and HOV lanes can benefit corridor capacity. Roadway capacity is defined in terms of vehicles per hour. Well-utilized HOV lanes can contribute to roadway capacity, as they can carry more persons per lane than a mixed-flow lane. Similarly, buses are defined as additional roadway capacity.


September 26, 2013

Existing conditions for this measure are obtained through a regular monitoring process. Monitoring of this measure requires that the number of riders and the seats on buses in a peak hour in each direction be defined. It requires observing travel volumes, as well as the average vehicle occupancy on a given mixed-flow or HOV lane. The following CMP facilities were monitored in 2012 for this CMP update:

US 101 at Golden Gate Bridge US 101 North of SR 131 (Tiburon Boulevard) US 101 from Manual T. Freitas Parkway to Lucas Valley Road US 101 from North of Atherton Avenue to the Sonoma County Line I-580 from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the Marin County Line SR-1 from Northern Avenue to Almonte Boulevard SR-1 from US-101 to Tennessee Valley Road

Table 13 compares the results of the person throughput monitoring for the PM peak hour period for 2010 and 2012. It should be noted that only two of the six locations monitored in 2010 were also monitored in 2012. In 2012, five new segments were additionally monitored. The 2012 monitoring results include HOV lane utilization for the two locations where HOV lanes currently exist.

Jobs/Housing (Employed Residents) Balance

The performance measure considers the balance between projected employed residents and projected jobs within different planning areas of the county. Achieving a balance between jobs and housing within a community or area can help the regional transportation system by reducing the length of trips and traffic congestion. Table 14 lists the results of Bay Area jobs-housing balance projections as estimated in the current Marin Travel Model and ABAG / Plan Bay Area forecasts. In 2010, Marin County saw a slight jobs-housing imbalance commensurate with the imbalance for the region, with approximately 4,000 more jobs than employed residents. By 2040, this imbalance is expected to shift in the opposite direction for the County, with approximately 7,400 more residents than jobs. These residents are not likely to work in Sonoma County, as that county is expected to have its own substantial net export of workers (27,400) in 2040. It is expected the most of the excess workers residing in Marin County in 2040 would commute to jobs in San Francisco, Alameda, and Napa Counties.


September 26, 2013

Table 13: Person Throughput Monitoring Results – PM Peak Hour 2010 2012

Segment Transit Person

Auto Person: General

Auto Person: HOV Lane

Van Pool

Person

Total Person

Transit Person

Auto Person: General

Auto Person: HOV Lane

Van Pool

Person

Total Person

US 101 - NB (I-580 - Central San Rafael) 320 7,896 1,506 47 9,769 - - - - -

US 101 - NB (SR 131 - Paradise Dr.) 1,400 6,397 2,226 47 10,070 1,402 4,055 2,076 39 7,572

US 101 - NB (North of Atherton) 320 3,290 - 93 3,703 256 5,182 - 19 5,457

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard - NWB (East of Wolf Grade) 266 1,395 - 93 1,754 - - - - -

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard - NWB (North of Red Hill Rd) 304 2,285 - 0 2,589 - - - - -

Red Hill Avenue - NWB (East of SDF Boulevard) 228 2,094 - 0 2,322 - - - - -

US 101 - NB ( Golden Gate Bridge) - - - - - 1,277 4,458 - 32 5,767

US 101 - NB (Manuel T. Freitas Parkway - Lucas Valley Road) - - - - - 808 3,702 2,313 84 6,907

I - 580 - EB ( Sir Francis Drake Blvd - Marin County Line) - - - - - 47 3,798 - 78 3,923

SR-1 - WB ( Northern Avenue - Almonte Boulevard) - - - - - 0 734 - 0 734

SR-1 - WB ( US 101 - Tennessee Valley Road) - - - - - 338 1,798 - 0 2,136

Source: KHA (2013). DKS (2011).


September 26, 2013

Table 14: Bay Area Jobs/Housing Balance Projections Category/County 2010 2040 % Change Employed Residents San Francisco 384,994 559,923 45.44% San Mateo 310,293 445,591 43.60% Santa Clara 738,391 1,158,405 56.88% Alameda 674,895 891,473 32.09% Contra Costa 462,499 579,757 25.35% Solano 185,491 224,059 20.79% Napa 61,904 69,450 12.19% Sonoma 223,901 284,856 27.22%

Marin 110,899 136,554 23.13% Regional Total 3,153,267 4,350,068 37.95% Total Jobs San Francisco 550,363 759,515 38.00% San Mateo 331,931 445,047 34.08% Santa Clara 811,902 1,229,588 51.45% Alameda 686,981 947,664 37.95% Contra Costa 352,870 467,342 32.44% Solano 179,933 179,933 0.00% Napa 61,748 89,550 45.02% Sonoma 177,617 257,449 44.95%

Marin 114,864 129,144 12.43% Regional Total 3,268,209 4,505,232 37.85% Jobs/Residents Ratio San Francisco 1.43 1.36 -5.11% San Mateo 1.07 1.00 -6.63% Santa Clara 1.10 1.06 -3.47% Alameda 1.02 1.06 4.43% Contra Costa 0.76 0.81 5.65% Solano 0.97 0.80 -17.21% Napa 1.00 1.29 29.27% Sonoma 0.79 0.90 13.93%

Marin 1.04 0.95 -8.69% Regional Total 1.04 1.04 -0.08% Import (Export) of Workers San Francisco 165,369 199,592 - San Mateo 21,638 -544 - Santa Clara 73,511 71,183 - Alameda 12,086 56,191 - Contra Costa -109,629 -112,415 - Solano -5,558 -44,126 - Napa -156 20,100 - Sonoma -46,284 -27,407 -

Marin 3,965 -7,410 - Regional Total 114,942 155,164 -

Sources: Marin Travel Model, ABAG (2013)


September 26, 2013

Mode Shares for Work Travel

For information purposes, data regarding the travel mode for work trips of Marin residents is included in this CMP. The percentage of modes chosen for traveling to work has been sampled from the research performed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Census Bureau collects journey-to-work data via the American Community Survey (ACS), which samples about one percent of all households annually and publishes results in one-year, three-year and five-year rolling averages. Table 15 compares the surveyed commute mode shares in 2009 and 2011 among employed Marin County residents as reported by ACS. Both reported years represent three-year rolling averages. The 2009 results were previously reported in the 2011 CMP, and 2011 represents the latest available ACS survey. The results indicate a decrease in the total number of employed residents in Marin County over the last two years, which is likely a lingering effect of the economic recession of the previous decade. Nevertheless, there has been an observable decline in the proportion of county residents driving alone to work, which is commensurate with increases to shares for carpooling, bicycling, walking, and working at home. The share of people commuting to work via public transportation has stabilized over the last two years. Approximately 24 percent more workers are walking to work in the last two years, and about 3,700 fewer workers are driving alone to work during the same period. Table 15: Journey-to-Work Transportation Mode Shares in Marin County

Mode

2007-2009 American Community Survey

2009-2011 American Community Survey

Number Percent Number Percent

Drive 83,135 67.9% 79,437 66.5%

Carpool 10,285 8.4% 10,512 8.8%

Public Transportation 10,407 8.5% 10,154 8.5%

Bicycle 1,592 1.3% 1,672 1.4%

Walk 3,551 2.9% 4,420 3.7%

Other 1,714 1.4% 1,195 1.0%

Work at Home 11,754 9.6% 12,065 10.1%

Total 122,438 100% 119,454 100%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Tables B08301, C08301, DP03 (2013)


September 26, 2013

4. Travel Demand Management

Purpose and Intent of Legislation CMPs are required by California Government Code section 65089(b)(3) to include a travel demand management (TDM) element for purposes of promoting alternative transportation methods to reduce traffic congestion. Assembly Bill (AB) 2419, which became effective January 1, 1997, amended the original state congestion management legislation by eliminating the requirement for a “trip reduction” component, leaving only the “travel demand” component. According to the 1997 CMP legislation, the TDM element should promote:

• Alternatives to the single‐occupant automobile, e.g., carpools, vanpools, transit, and bicycles

• Increased use of park‐and‐ride lots • Improvements in the balance between jobs and housing • Other strategies for reducing vehicle trips, including flexible work hours, telecommuting,

and parking management programs In addition to the above strategies, a CMA must also consider parking cash-out programs as part of the development and update of its CMP’s travel demand element. Local city and county governments are responsible for planning future land use and zoning patterns and for reviewing proposed development plans. During both long-range planning and development-review phases of local planning, local governments have opportunities to ensure that TDM measures are implemented. Although not required, local governments may also choose to support (through resolution or other means) regional TDM measures, including carpool lanes and ridesharing facilities and programs, which could be implemented by other agencies, such as TAM or MTC. Peak-period travel speeds are anticipated to deteriorate on freeways and arterials in Marin County as new development occurs on a roadway system with little opportunity or funding available for major expansion. Along with improving roadway operations and improving local transit service in response to this forecasted growth in traffic, it is also important to implement TDM measures to improve the operating efficiency of the existing county transportation system. The TDM element of the CMP encourages an on-going process that promotes local and regional planning to reduce traffic congestion. Travel Demand Management in Marin County The intent of this element is to summarize the greatest possible range of choices to Marin County and its eleven cities in implementing the overall goal of reduced peak-hour usage of single-occupant vehicles. The TDM measures proposed fall into four broad categories:

• Traffic operational improvements that improve traffic flow. These improvements could come through such diverse sources as increased ridesharing or minor modifications to the highway system.

• Transit improvements that attract more riders to transit systems.


September 26, 2013

• Traffic mitigation measures that are intended to reduce development- or planning area-generated traffic and administered through employer or developer requirements.

• Land-use planning and regulations that seek to limit demand for transportation or to mandate implementation of traffic mitigation techniques through the land-use planning or approval processes.

The above TDM categories overlap to some extent. For example, traffic mitigation measures may be required as part of development permit approval, and traffic mitigation may include greater use of public transit. The classification system focuses primarily on the entity responsible for implementation. Traffic operational improvements generally are implemented by state highway and local public works departments; transit improvements are sponsored by Marin Transit; Golden Gate Transit is a sponsor as for TDM related investments like installing bike racks on buses; employers and developers implement traffic mitigation measures; and local planning agencies are generally responsible for land use planning and regulations. Effective traffic mitigation requires coordinated and systematic action by both the public and the private sectors. TAM continues to expand its TDM and commute alternative efforts. A Vanpool Incentive Program has been established with financial support from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). Together with the completion of the US 101 Gap Closure Project between the cities of Corte Madera and San Rafael, this and other rideshare programs continue to promote the use of new, uninterrupted high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes through Marin County. Another recent TFCA-supported program is TAM’s Emergency Ride Home (ERH) program, which was launched spring 2012. Under the program, those who use such commute alternatives will have access to free transportation home (via taxi) in the event of an unforeseen emergency. The ERH program has been marketed to employers throughout Marin County. The program is available to Marin employees whose employers have registered in the program. The program promotes and supports various alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) driving, including transit and ridesharing (carpool, vanpool, or other similar means), as well as bicycling and walking. SchoolPool, a component of Safe Routes to Schools, is a ride matching program that addresses school-related congestion. Currently, TAM is part of a three-county pilot collaboration with Sonoma and Contra Costa Counties to test Dynamic (or “real-time”) Rideshare software. The pilot is supported by MTC Climate Initiative Grant Program funding. Finally, TAM continues to coordinate rideshare marketing activities with MTC’s Regional 511 Rideshare Program. In 2013, TAM is initiating new efforts to reduce vehicle trips and congestion, funded in part by Measure B, the vehicle registration fee adopted in 2010. Other TDM efforts in Marin County include:

• Transit information and promotion • Driving management programs to support telework/telecommuting


September 26, 2013

• Promotion of car-sharing (both traditional and peer-to-peer) models in Marin • Additional employer support, including small and medium size employers, leveraging

511.org Regional Ride Share resources that continue to provide quality services to employers

• General employer support for a strengthened transportation component within Marin County’s Green Business Certification Program;

• Commuter Benefit Program promotion related to new State law SB 1339, including pre-tax employer/employee incentive encouragement such as programs that automatically fund monthly transit passes such as the Clipper Card.

• Promoting a TDM Tool Kit to assist employers develop their own TDM programs and policies.

Air Quality Plan Consistency as Incorporated into Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) incorporates Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) contained in federal and state air quality plans to achieve and maintain standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. The statutes require that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of the CMP conform to transportation-related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures. CMPs should promote the region’s adopted TCMs for the federal and state clean air plans. The Marin CMP includes numerous project types and programs that are identified in the TCM plan. Table 16 lists chapters of the Marin CMP that provide opportunities to address these TCMs. There are currently no unmet TCMs in the Bay Area’s implementation plans for air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the latest Clean Air Plan in September 2010. The TCMs identified in the current plan are refined from prior TCMs to better define the actions and have also been expanded to include greenhouse gas emission mitigation actions. Table 16: 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in Marin CMP

TCM Description CMP Reference

A-1 Improve Local and Area wide Bus Service

Improve transit by providing new Express Bus or Bus Rapid Transit on major travel corridors, funding the replacement of older and dirtier buses, and implementing Transit Priority Measures on key transit routes.

Chapter 7, Capital Improvement Program

A-2 Improve Local and Regional Rail Service

Improve rail service by sustaining and expanding local and regional rail services and by providing funds to maintain rail-cars, stations and other rail capital assets.


B -1 Implement Freeway Performance Initiative

Improve the performance and efficiency of freeway and arterial systems through operational improvements, including the Freeway Performance Initiative, the Arterial Management Program, and the Freeway Service Patrol.



September 26, 2013


B-2 Improve Transit Efficiency and Use

Improve transit efficiency and use through continued operation of 511 Transit, and full implementation of TransLink® payment system and the Transit Hub Signage Program.

Chapter 3, Performance Measures

B-3 Bay Area Express Lane Network

Introduce roadway pricing on Bay Area highways through the implementation of an express lane network, also known as a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane network.

Chapter7, Capital Improvement Program

B-4 Goods movement Improvements and Emission Reduction Strategies

Improve goods movement and reduce emissions from diesel equipment through implementation of the Bay Area’s Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) projects and various funding programs to replace or retrofit diesel equipment.

Chapter7, Capital Improvement Program

C-1 Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program

Support voluntary employer trip reduction programs through the implementation of the 511Regional Ride share Program and Congestion Management Agency ride share programs, the Spare the Air Program, encouraging cities to adopt transit benefit ordinances, and supporting Bay Area shuttle service providers.

Chapter 4, Travel demand Management

C-2 Implement Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Transit

Facilitate safe routes to schools and transit by providing funds and working with transportation agencies, local governments, schools, and communities to implement safe access for pedestrians and cyclists.


C-3 Promote Rideshare Services and Incentives

Promote rideshare services and incentives through the implementation of the 511Regional Rideshare Program and Congestion Management Agency rideshare programs including marketing ride share services, operating ride share information call center and website ,and providing van pool support services.

Chapter 4, Travel Demand Management

C-4 Conduct Public Outreach and Education

Educate the public about the air quality, environmental, and social benefits of carpooling, vanpooling, taking public transit, biking, walking, and telecommuting, through the Spare the Air and Climate Action Campaigns


C-5 Promote Smart Driving/Speed Moderation

Educate the public about the air quality and climate protection benefits of reducing high-speed driving and observing posted speed limits.


D-1 Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities

Expand bicycle facilities serving transit hubs employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers.


D-2 Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities

Provide funding for projects to improve pedestrian access to transit hubs, employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers.


D-3 Support Local Land Use Strategies

Promote land use patterns, policies, and infrastructure investments that support mixed-use, transit-oriented development that reduce motor vehicle dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use.



September 26, 2013


E-1 Value Pricing Strategies

Implement value pricing (congestion pricing) on Bay Bridge; consider expanding value pricing to other Bay Area toll bridges to manage travel demand during congested periods.

Not applicable to Marin County

E-2 Parking Pricing and Management Strategies

Promote policies to implement market-rate pricing of parking facilities, reduce parking requirements for new development projects, parking “cash-out”, unbundlingofparkinginleases,sharedparkingatmixed-usefacilities,etc.


E-3 Implement Transportation Pricing Reform

Develop a regional transportation pricing strategy that includes policy evaluation and implementation Pricing policies to be evaluated include gasoline taxes, bridge tolls, congestion pricing, parking pricing, HOT lanes, VMT or carbon fees, pay-as-you-drive insurance, etc.


Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2010).


September 26, 2013

Additional Transportation Demand Management Activity

Station Area Planning

TAM has provided funding and active participation in the development of a station area plans for the future Sonoma-Marin Area Transit (SMART) rail stations at Downtown San Rafael and Civic Center. In addition, TAM has collaborated locally on a Station Area Plan for the Larkspur SMART Station and Ferry Terminal.

Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Design Toolkit

In 2007, TAM issued the TPLUS Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Design Toolkit. This document contains several development strategies that can be used to achieve trip reduction. These include concepts on land use (density, intensity and mixed-use), urban design (site plans, building orientation and parking), improved connectivity (for local traffic, bicycles, pedestrian and transit), traffic management (traffic calming), street design (including paved roadways, sidewalks, landscaping and transit facilities), specific mobility needs for seniors and persons with disabilities, access to schools (transit, bicycle and pedestrian), educational programs, and parking guidance. The report contains “best practices” concepts that are most appropriate for application in Marin County.

Reducing Vehicles Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In its capacity as local Congestion Management Agency (CMA), TAM seeks opportunities for achieving congestion relief. These include roadway improvements, such as the carpool lane gap closure on US 101 through Corte Madera and San Rafael; facilitating transit improvements by committing funds collected through the 1/2-cent County sales tax for transportation; and supporting investments in bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, such as the Cal-Park Hill Tunnel and Puerto Suello Hill/Lincoln Multi-use path. As the County CMA, TAM can consider additional opportunities for congestion relief which serve to meet air quality goals. These can include the following:

• Coordinate and/or support grant opportunities for alternative fuel development or electric vehicle purchase and its associated infrastructure.

• Coordinate bicycle/pedestrian facility development in Marin County that crosses local jurisdictional boundaries to achieve a greater benefit than a single jurisdictional entity may provide.

• Expand coordination opportunities with employers and employees to rideshare, telecommute, or implement other options to driving alone.

The above efforts can serve to reduce traffic congestion, as well as auto-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In addition to these local measures, TAM continues to coordinate with state and regional efforts to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Senate Bill (SB) 375 links land use and transportation through the adoption of regional plans to reduce emissions throughout the state. MTC has incorporated these reductions into a Sustainable Communities Strategy, which together with the Regional Transportation Plan, comprise the recently-adopted Plan Bay Area. TAM staff continues to work with the regional agencies and local jurisdictions to share information and coordinate efforts relative to Plan Bay Area.


September 26, 2013

School Rideshare Outreach

TAM anticipates further decrease in school-related auto trips with continued implementation of the Greenways to School, SchoolPool, and related efforts under the Safe Routes to Schools program. Under the SchoolPool program, TAM has implemented websites for some schools to connect interested rideshare and carpool participants, with the focus on linking both students and commuters with common destinations.


September 26, 2013

5. Land Use Analysis

Purpose and Intent of Legislation Section 65089(b)(4) of the California Government Code requires that a CMP include a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on the regional transportation system (both highways and transit). The Land Use Analysis Program must include an estimate of the costs to mitigate impacts of development on the highway and transit systems. The legislation allows the cost of mitigating interregional travel (trips that do not begin in Marin County or trips that travel entirely through Marin County) to be excluded from the mitigation cost estimate. Public and private (developer) contributions to regional transportation improvements may be credited. The legislation does not modify the role of local jurisdictions in making land use decisions and in determining the responsibilities of project proponents to mitigate those impacts. However, TAM has the authority to withhold gas tax subventions to local governments provided by Proposition 111 if a local jurisdiction fails to meet the requirements outlined in the Monitoring and Conformance chapter of the CMP (Chapter 8). Further guidance on the Land Use Analysis Program is found in the Congestion Management Resource Handbook (Caltrans, November 1990, pages 35‐37). The Land-Use Analysis Program is particularly important because it affects, or is affected by:

• The CMP Designated Transportation System and Roadway Level of Service Standards (see Chapters 1 and 2);

• Performance Measures (see Chapter 3); • The Marin Travel Model (MTM), which can be used to analyze the impacts of land use

changes on both highways and transit (see Chapter 6); and • The Capital Improvement Program (see Chapter 7).

The intent of the Land Use Analysis Program is to improve the linkage between local land use decisions and regional transportation facility decisions; to better assess the impacts of development in one community on another; and to promote information sharing between local governments when the decisions made by one jurisdiction have an impact on another. The Land Use Analysis Program for the Marin County CMP is a process designed to improve upon decisions about land use and the spending of funds on highway and transit improvements in the county. The process is intended to work in a positive, cooperative fashion that supports the needs of local, county, regional and state governments. TAM acts as a resource to local governments in performing transportation analyses of land use changes on the CMP designated transportation network. The MTM is used to analyze the transportation effects of local general plan updates and amendments and other major development decisions. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a framework for such assessment. To avoid duplication, the Land Use Analysis Program is intended to make maximum use of the CEQA process.


September 26, 2013

Cities can develop and maintain their own transportation models for use in local forecasting or impact analysis. However, as discussed in Chapter 6, their models should be approved by TAM for consistency with countywide and regional transportation models. Currently, no cities in Marin County have their own multimodal model for local forecasting. The Marin County CMP has established two separate information and analysis processes regarding determination of local land use impacts. Under Part A, local governments forward information on proposed major developments, major general plan updates or other amendments to TAM during the period when the local jurisdiction is reviewing the application. Part B requires participation in a biennial tracking update of projected land uses for use in modeling both traffic and transit impacts. Land Use Analysis Program Part A: Major Development Projects and General Plan Updates In Part A, local governments inform TAM about any general plan updates or amendments, or major developments concurrent with the local governments’ approval process. By analyzing general plan updates or amendments or major development proposals rather than by each individual development permit, cities and TAM can proactively take into account regional transportation impacts and needs, and also determine ways to finance transportation costs in advance of development proposals. According to TAM staff, as of August 2013 there are no major development proposals in the near-term horizon.

Threshold for Part A Analysis

If a general plan update or amendment, or major development proposal is projected to generate a net increase of 100 vehicle trips during the PM (afternoon) peak hour, information is to be forwarded to TAM for comment and is subject to a CMP analysis. Local jurisdictions are responsible for determining which projects meet these criteria. The PM peak hour is most appropriate for this determination given that for most roadway segments, traffic levels of service are worse during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak hour. Examples of projects that typically meet the 100-trip threshold include 100 single-family homes, 150 apartment units, 5,000 square feet of retail space, or 40,000 square feet of office space.

Procedures for Part A Analysis

The local jurisdiction reviewing the proposed land use development or proposing a change to their general plan should notify TAM of the impending action and prepare a traffic impact study (either a stand‐alone study or part of an Environmental Impact Report) through a Notice of Preparation or similar process. In addition to the proposed land use change, the sponsor should submit information on potential highway network and transit system changes in their jurisdiction that could result from implementation through project or ordinance approvals, or changes to the circulation element policies or maps in their general plan. Once TAM receives a project notice, TAM staff will prepare a response directing the applicant on what analysis is appropriate to fulfill CMP requirements. The TAM staff response should include a recommended approach to apply the travel model for use in the study. TAM usually recommends applying the county travel model under these specific situations:

1. General plan updates and amendments are normally processed well before any construction takes place. This provides more time for transportation impacts to be analyzed and mitigation measures developed than would occur if the analysis took place closer to actual project construction.


September 26, 2013

2. Existing general plans have already been incorporated into the Year 2035 land uses for the countywide model, as well as for the MTC regional travel model. The TAM model is currently being updated to Year 2040 land uses consistent with Plan Bay Area projections. Thus, any land development project that conforms to the general plan should not materially alter the forecast results generated by computer analysis already completed or being completed for the CMP. Only changes in (or amendments to) existing general plans could cause significant change in the Year 2035 / 2040 model forecasts.

3. A city or the county may consider general plan updates or amendments no more than four times during any year according to state law. This reduces the possible model runs that would be required.

4. Most (but not all) general plan updates or amendments are for developments of significant size.

Future levels of service are based on the land use assumptions and corresponding travel demand forecasts based on current general plans. The information on noticing that should be forwarded to TAM includes:

• Precise location of the project(s) with map, including street access location; • Proposed project land use(s) and number of dwelling units or square footage of

development; • Any available traffic studies, including trip generation rates assumed in determining

whether the general plan update or amendment met the 100‐trip threshold; and • Expected occupancy of each land use in Year 2035 / 2040, with completion date and

phasing. The MTM is available to be used as part of the local development review process where appropriate. The local jurisdiction is responsible for determining future baseline traffic volumes, but may use the MTM for background or cumulative conditions analyses. The local jurisdiction remains responsible for identifying mitigations and funding any costs associated with a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for any project. It should be noted that the MTM is managed directly by TAM; therefore TAM must coordinate and manage any use of the model. It may be appropriate for TAM to participate in a Part A land use analysis, especially if it involves using the MTM. If TAM participates in a Part A analysis, TAM would make modifications to its land use database contained in the model. A model run would include all highway and transit improvements (not just those on CMP designated facilities) for which funds seem reasonably secure, and also any improvements the applicant is willing to pay for as a condition of development approval. TAM would forward this information to the local agency, which would consider any level of service reduction in making their decision to approve or not to approve the development project / general plan amendment. In developing conditions for project approval, the local jurisdiction would then have the option of:

• Requiring additional mitigations from the developer, such as TDM measures (e.g., transit service, flex time, etc.), roadway improvements that would improve the LOS to the adopted standard, or other system improvements that would improve air quality as allowed by the CMP legislation;

• Delaying the project until a certain highway or transit project is constructed;


September 26, 2013

• Working closely with the TAM staff on development of a Deficiency Plan if it appears that a CMP system segment does not meet the adopted LOS standard; or

• Choosing not to implement any of the above measures and risk having the LOS not meet the adopted standard on certain roadway segments in a future year. In this case, the local government would risk losing the increment of gasoline taxes provided by Proposition 111.

Once a study of the transportation impacts is completed, the local jurisdiction should send a draft copy to TAM for referral and comment. If the draft is prepared as part of an Environmental Impact Report, TAM concerns should be addressed in a final certification. Once any remaining concerns expressed by TAM have been addressed and final documentation is completed, the local jurisdiction sends final project information and documentation to TAM as part of the Part A compliance. Land Use Analysis Program Part B: Biennial Development Tracking Marin County maintains an inventory of proposed development projects, known as "PROPDEV." PROPDEV includes all projects with at least five residential units or at least 5,000 square feet of nonresidential use. The PROPDEV database file covers 40 items of information including location, project sponsor, acreage, zoning, square feet of building area, and status of development application. The most recent PROPDEV database was completed in June 2009. Many projects in Marin County are generally too small to effectively analyze using the county model on an individual basis. As mentioned earlier in Part A, large projects requiring a city or county general plan update or amendment should be analyzed using the model. Participation in development tracking is simple and useful for three principal reasons:

• Local jurisdictions already are responsible for reporting information for all land use development;

• Compliance with Part B of the Land Use Analysis Program is easily attained by biennially submitting a complete account of all residential and commercial projects approved in the preceding submittal and reviewing the PROPDEV inventory for that jurisdiction; and

• Adjacent jurisdictions are able to account for nearby cumulative development more easily. Once TAM has received updates on land use changes from the planning departments of each local government in Marin County, it should then biennially update the MTM with updated land use information. In addition to land use changes, local governments are also responsible for advising TAM of planned changes to the roadway network and transit system based on their knowledge of developer mitigations, ordinance approvals, or changes to the circulation element of their general plan. Additional Periodic Compliance In addition to the Part A and Part B program elements that demonstrate biennial compliance, local governments should report when periodic changes occur in two other special instances:


September 26, 2013

• Each jurisdiction should report changes to local traffic LOS standards, and confirm that they are consistent with or more restrictive than the LOS standards in the CMP.

• Each jurisdiction should inform TAM when any other changes to the transportation network have occurred or changed, or are programmed to occur or change within their local capital improvements program or budget, or in any administrative directives.

Relationship of Land Use Analysis Program to CEQA Local governments continue to have lead agency responsibility under CEQA for performing Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations and conducting transportation analyses supporting these documents. Local government should continue to propose and analyze mitigation strategies. TAM may comment through the CEQA process, keeping local governments informed as to the adequacy of the analysis and approving any transportation models used as part of the analysis. TAM may also provide local governments with information on cumulative impacts.


September 26, 2013

Impacts of Non-Compliance In the future, if any Marin County jurisdiction does not comply with each of these CMP requirements by December 2013 (when TAM makes any necessary non‐conformance determination for each jurisdiction), that jurisdiction is found in non‐conformance and may risk:

• Losing an increment in its gasoline tax subvention funds; and/or • Not having projects programmed in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program

(RTIP)


September 26, 2013

6. Travel Demand Model

Purpose and Intent of Legislation California Government Code Section 65089(c) requires that every CMA, in consultation with the regional transportation planning agency (MTC in the Bay Area), cities, and the county, develop a uniform database on traffic impacts for use in a countywide travel demand model. The State statute also requires the countywide model to be the basis for transportation models used for county sub-areas and cities, and that all models are consistent with the modeling methodology and databases used by the regional transportation planning agency. The CMA also approves sub-county area transportation models and models used by local jurisdictions for land-use impact analysis, if local jurisdictions decide to develop them. In Marin County, the Marin Travel Model (MTM) is routinely updated as part of the consistency determination process with MTC. The purpose of the travel demand model requirement is to guide the CMA decision-making process in identifying the most effective balance of transportation programs and projects that maintain LOS standards, which includes:

1. Consideration of the benefits of transit service and TDM programs, and 2. The need for projects that improve congestion on the CMP designated network.

The modeling requirement is also intended to assist local agencies in assessing the impact of new development on the transportation system. TAM needs to consider the nature of the analysis, functions of specific analytical tools, and its available resources when deciding how to fulfill this requirement of the statute. Local Agency Requirements At this time, there are no specific requirements of local agencies, other than supplying the base year land use information that is noted in the land use analysis chapter (Chapter 5). TAM expects to continue operating and refining its own countywide model, although cities may also create and use their own model subject to the above legislative requirements. Travel Demand Forecast Overview A distinct and measurable relationship between travel demand, land use patterns, and transportation systems is the basis for modern transportation planning practice. Transportation models have been developed as the best tools available to quantify this relationship; however, it is complex. Research on more effective transportation modeling continues to evolve. CMP legislation requires consistency with the regional travel model. This CMP chapter summarizes the MTM performance and its consistency with the MTC Travel Demand Model guidelines for CMPs. The last conformity evaluation of the MTM was completed in 2011 and remains current as of this CMP update. The MTM is currently being updated for the next conformity evaluation due to MTC in October 2013. Existing and Past Programs Bay Area travel demand modeling has been characterized by extensive travel behavior studies and model development by MTC, the recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization and regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area, in cooperation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Since the early 1970’s, MTC has had the responsibility and also funding at


September 26, 2013

the Federal level to develop models of travel behavior. Marin County, in developing its own travel demand model (MTM), has built on information and logic from the MTC model. MTC is required to review any sub‐regional model for consistency with the MTC model. TAM staff assists with any model revisions. The remainder of this chapter contains the MTC checklist and responses for model consistency. MTC’s goal is to establish a regionally consistent model “set” for application by MTC and the CMAs within the nine-county Bay Area. The Bay Area Partnership recently issued a report on modeling consistency issues. This report recommended that MTC develop and the CMAs incorporate a consistent set of model components on desktop computers (termed BAYCAST). For immediate use for this CMP, the study recommended that the current MTC checklist format be used, with specific tolerances. This current MTC checklist incorporates results of testing those tolerances, as well as additional analyses. Perhaps most important to TAM, the report found that, “…the Marin and San Mateo CMA model systems are the closest to the MTC model system. They use the same trip generation, mode split and assignment algorithms.” Differences have been cited in Marin’s use of “…finer network and zonal detail…” and “…locally calibrated friction factor curves…” and the need to use its “…own equations to derive additional demographic detail not provided in …ABAG forecasts.” However, these differences did not detract from the consistency assessment. Land use forecasts for Marin County jurisdictions currently are consistent with ABAG’s Projections 2009. Under the current model update due October 2013 to MTC, the MTM will be updated to the Plan Bay Area land use projections for Year 2040. Plan Bay Area is the combined Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area. In measures including households, population, jobs, and employed residents, the changes in the model update will be within the MTC criteria for sub-regional model consistency. Thus, Marin County will continue to fall within the model consistency checklist. MTC Modeling Consistency MTC’s goal is to establish regionally consistent model “sets” for application by MTC and the CMAs. In the winter of 2010/2011, MTC replaced the modeling tool – named BAYCAST-90 – that had been in place, with relatively minor modifications, for the past two decades with a more sophisticated, so-called “activity-based” model – named Travel Model One. This change required a broad re-thinking of these guidelines as they now require a framework in which trip-based and activity-based models can be aligned. The approach remains the same: a checklist is used to adjudge consistency across model components. Checklist MTC requires local CMAs to submit a checklist for model consistency. This Checklist guides CMAs through their model development and consistency review process by providing an inventory of specific products to be developed and submitted to MTC, and by describing standard practices and assumptions to be followed. The Checklist items are highlighted in this chapter. Because of the complexity of the topic, the checklist may need additional detailed information to explain differences in methodologies or data. Significant differences will be resolved between MTC and the CMA, taking advantage of the Regional Model Working Group. Standard formats for model comparisons will be developed by MTC for use in future guidelines. With regard to the MTM, no difference in data occurs that requires resolution.


September 26, 2013

Update Process

TAM model forecasts must be updated every two years to be consistent with MTC’s forecasts. Alternative approaches to fully rerunning the entire model are available, including incremental approaches that apply factors to demographic inputs or to trip tables. Similarly, the horizon year must be the same as the TIP horizon year; however, interpolation and extrapolation approaches are acceptable, with appropriate attention to network changes. These alternative approaches should be reviewed with MTC. The MTM is routinely updated to reflect new development and transportation projects within Marin County.

Marin Travel Model Conformity to MTC Model Data

The MTM conforms to MTC consistency guidelines. The conformity between the MTM and MTC forecasting was established in 2011. The next model conformity check is due to MTC in October 2013, and TAM is updating the MTM model as part of that process. Below is a list of MTC Checklist requirements and how MTM is meeting or will meet them. 1. Requirement: Unless otherwise specified, the MTC model sets referred to below will be defined as

those in use on October 1st of the year preceding the CMP update. The model data sets used by MTC in October 2011 have been those associated with the adopted RTP at that time. The MTM will be updated to more recent MTC data inputs from 2012 to meet the October 2013 requirement. The MTC model trip tables are developed by factoring up the 2005 base year from ABAG’s Projections 2007 to a 2009 base year. The current MTM model update will include the most recent Plan Bay Area forecasts. In addition, major completed projects that affect travel in Marin County are included in both MTC and MTM travel models.

2. Requirement: Describe the model, and its relationship to the MTC model. If the model is based on

MTC’s model, describe any adjustments to model constants, coefficients, k-factor or friction factor re-estimation, market segmentation, trip purposes, etc.. TAM operates and updates its own countywide travel demand model using information and logic from the MTC model. For the CMP 2013, the Marin Travel Model (MTM) contains 117 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the county, 83 TAZs for San Francisco, 69 TAZs for Sonoma, and 24 TAZs corresponding with MTC “super-districts” representing other Bay Area counties. Each of these zones and districts is connected to the others with a network of road and transit lines. Travel models use specialized software to predict AM and PM peak hour travel between these zones, and estimate Average Daily Traffic.

The MTM is a “focused” model, meaning that the network contains different structures inside and outside the focus area. The inside or focused counties for the MTM are San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. Other Bay Area counties are outside the focused area. The main difference is that the more detailed MTC network structure is included in focused areas, while a skeleton roadway network is structured outside. Because the network outside the focused areas is reduced, the speeds on the skeleton roadway network in other Bay Area counties are fixed (not variable depending on capacity). Therefore, traffic volumes do not represent actual traffic volumes on these “unfocused” roadway links. To further ensure regional consistency, the MTM uses a technique referred to as “balancing.” This is done to guarantee that trip‐end estimates and forecasts and trip flows between counties are roughly equal, whether provided by the MTC regional model or the MTM.


September 26, 2013

The MTM mode‐choice procedure occurs after the person‐trip generation and trip‐distribution steps. It includes a detailed mode‐choice analysis that predicts transit‐person trips, 2‐person vehicle‐person trips, 3+ person vehicle‐person trips, or drive alone vehicle‐person trips for home-based‐work trips. More simple formulas are used to predict all other trip purposes and modes, including home‐based shopping trips, home‐based social‐recreational trips, home‐based school trips, and non‐home‐based trips as well as walking and bicycle trips.

3. Requirement: Use exact Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) data for other Bay Area

counties, and control totals (within one percent) for the county for population, households, jobs, and employed residents. Congestion Management Agencies may reallocate growth forecasts within their own county in consultation with cities, MTC, and ABAG. The latest set of ABAG’s Projections must be used for all new demographic databases developed for baseline travel demand forecasting purposes after August 1 of the year preceding the CMP update. Future year forecasts should address the latest available ABAG Projection series. MTC, in consultation with the Modeling Coordination Working Group, will develop factors that may be used to achieve consistency with the most recent ABAG demographics. Congestion Management Agencies may also, of course, analyze alternative land use scenarios in addition to these forecasts. If a land use based model is utilized, production and attraction comparisons will be made with the MTC model. The MTM has been continually updated for consistency with the most recent MTC data sets available, which are originally based on ABAG Projections 2007 land use data. The current MTM was adjusted in 2010 to reflect ABAG Projections 2009, and the 2013 MTM update is incorporating the latest ABAG projections as incorporated in Plan Bay Area. Sometimes, land use data is unavailable from local jurisdictions, forcing estimates based on past data or overall growth in the area. This requires TAM to adjust its input while better data are acquired. The overall land use attributes for Marin County as a whole are consistent with ABAG. The difference between the MTM and ABAG 2009 estimates is one percent or less for all the land use categories, and the same difference is anticipated once the current MTM is updated to Plan Bay Area land use forecasts. Land use data outside of Marin is based on land use forecast assumptions as provided by MTC. Future year allocations by census tract provided by ABAG have been similarly refined. For this reason, individual census tracts do not contain land use attributes identical to MTC and ABAG, but the overall county total for 2035 is consistent with the agencies and expected to remain so with 2040 county totals under Plan Bay Area.

4. Requirement: Use MTC’s auto operating costs, transit fares, and bridge tolls. The MTM has made adjustments for the following regional pricing assumptions which are consistent with MTC requirements. The 2013 MTM update will conform to MTC’s more recent pricing from their Travel Model One model.

• Bridge Tolls. This assumes the $6.00 Golden Gate Bridge toll and $5.00 Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge peak hour toll, adjusted to 1979 dollars. These tolls reflect the 2009 base year amounts. The 2013 MTM update will reflect adjustments to 2010 dollars.


September 26, 2013

• Auto Parking Costs. Auto parking costs have been adjusted to the 1979 cost of living index as published by MTC. The 2013 MTM update will reflect adjustments to 2010 dollars.

• Auto Operating Costs. An auto operating cost that conforms to the MTC guidance (which is measured in 1979 dollars as 13.12 cents per mile). The 2013 MTM update will reflect adjustments to 2010 dollars, with a value of 29.2 cents per mile.

5. Requirement: Use MTC’s regional highway and transit network assumptions for other Bay Area

counties. Congestion Management Agencies should include more detailed network definition relevant to their own county in addition to the regional highway and transit networks. For the CMP horizon year, to be compared with the TIP interim year, regionally significant network changes in the base case scenario shall be limited to the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for projects subject to inclusion in the TIP.

The MTM was first developed in 1987 and was revalidated for 2005. The MTM uses the MTC model structure in terms of facility types and numbers of lanes for Marin County. Some additional detail in the roadway network has been added where appropriate within Marin County. The MTM includes representations of these major roadway gateways into and out of Marin County:

• Highway 101 – (Golden Gate Bridge) San Francisco • Interstate 580 – (Richmond/San Rafael Bridge) Contra Costa County • Highway 37 – Sonoma County • Highway 101 – Sonoma County • Highway 1 – Sonoma County

In addition, the MTM assumes ferry connections from Larkspur, Tiburon, and Sausalito to San Francisco. Lastly, the SMART commuter rail project is included in the future year model networks. Because this is a focused model, the East Bay and South Bay highway networks are much less detailed than in the MTC model. A skeleton network in these locations significantly reduces run time for the model, and enables the model to be small enough to be operated on desktop computers. This network reduction is considered to have a negligible impact to congestion in Marin County.

6. Requirement: Use MTC auto ownership models or forecasts, or submit alternative models to MTC for

review and comment. The MTM uses MTC and ABAG information on auto ownership to establish mode split. More specifically, MTM uses auto ownership information consistent with the MTC model inputs from the MTCFCAST model. MTM uses average auto ownership rates rather than households stratified by auto ownership.

7. Requirement: Use the BAYCAST person trip generation models for home-based work and non-work,

and non-home based trips, or submit alternative models to MTC for review and comment. Results may be adjusted sub-regionally through calibration or modal constant adjustments.

The MTM uses household size and income quartile cross-classification modeling. The MTM then revises the results using adjustment factors designed to replicate actual MTC trip generation patterns between counties into the model. In this way, aggregate trip generation by


September 26, 2013

county is also consistent with the MTC model. The difference in trip productions or attractions (by type of trip) between the MTM and MTC model is never greater than one percent.

8. Requirement: Work trip distribution models must be calibrated to the 2000 Census Journey-to-Work

commuter matrices. Trip distribution results must be balanced to productions, and attraction-balancing problems should be discussed with MTC. The MTM uses MTC trip distribution patterns between counties. By doing so, aggregate trip distribution by county is completely consistent with the MTC model. With this technique, the MTM has achieved a closer trip distribution match with the MTC model than is normally expected with a focused model structure. The difference between the two models is less than one percent for all interpolated county-to-county trips projected for the 2009 and 2035 model years. This difference is expected to remain the same with the completion of the 2013 MTM update, which pushes the horizon year to 2040 consistent with Plan Bay Area.

9. Requirement: If a logit mode choice model is to be used, MTC’s BAYCAST should be used, or submit

alternative methodology for MTC review. The MTM mode choice analysis is consistent with MTC methodology. For home-based work trips, the MTM contains a Home-Based Work Mode Choice Model that predicts work trips, dividing them into drive alone, 2-person, 3+ person and transit trips. The MTM assigns non-work trips to auto and transit, with auto occupancies inputted at this stage.

10. Requirement: Use capacity restraint assignment for peak�hour (or period) traffic assignments, or

submit alternative methodology for MTC review.

The MTM provides AM peak, PM peak, non-peak, average daily traffic, traffic and transit assignments similar to MTC’s methodology, with the same AM and PM time-of-day properties used by MTC.

Relationship to Marin County Capital Improvement Program The current 2011 CMP 2035 horizon year for the MTM includes all relevant projects listed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These projects are incorporated into the 2035 base network in the MTM. The MTM update to the 2040 horizon year will continue to include all relevant STIP projects in the future. The MTM is used for assessing the impacts of capital improvements. CMP statutes stipulate three criteria for projects selected for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP):

• Projects must maintain or improve the traffic level‐of‐service and transit performance standards,

• Project land use impacts must be mitigated, and • Projects must conform to vehicle emissions and air quality mitigation measures

Toward that end, MTM results are typically used in evaluating relevant projects in the CIP chapter (Chapter 7), in preparing a project list for Regional Transportation Improvement Program consideration by MTC and also for developing and programming any supplementary revenue sources.


September 26, 2013

7. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

Purpose and Intent of Legislation CMPs are required by California Government Code Section 65089(b)(5) to include a seven‐year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods and to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified through the Land use Analysis Program. Capital improvement projects must conform to transportation‐related vehicle emissions and air quality mitigation measures. In the Bay Area, such transportation control measures (TCMs) are contained in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Relationship to Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) MTC adopted the current RTP, Plan Bay Area, in July 2013. The action elements and projects for the CMP’s CIP should be consistent with the assumptions, goals, policies, actions and projects identified in the RTP. The RTP is the basic statement of transportation policy expressed by MTC. Given the established interdependence of transportation planning and land use planning, MTC made a significant effort to adopt policies that complement and support programs of Federal, State, and regional agencies. Relationship to Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) The Transportation Authority of Marin’s CIP is the basis for determining which projects are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Inclusion of a project in the RTIP is the first step in obtaining a funding commitment from the State. Projects that MTC includes in the RTIP are then recommended to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If the CTC includes a project in the STIP, it has approved the project for the necessary environmental studies and project design, which ultimately leads to a final decision on whether a project is implemented. Projects that are to be included in the RTIP must be first included in TAM’s CIP. However, it is should be noted that MTC is responsible for assembling the RTIP, and also, the RTIP is a funding‐constrained document. This CIP is developed with information from the current RTIP, which MTC adopted in December 2011 and the CTC adopted (as part of its STIP) in March 2012. MTC further updated the RTIP project list in May 2012. The dynamic nature of funding requires minor amendments to the plan several times a year. Relationship to Air Quality Attainment Plans The TAM CIP project list must show consistency to air quality attainment plans. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, is the current adopted plan. Various TCMs have been adopted as a part of this plan. MTC gives priority to those proposed projects that support or help implement any of the TCMs (see TDM Chapter 4 for a listing and discussion of TCMs). Examples of such projects include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and ramp meter bypass lanes for HOVs. Project Funding Identified in TAM Measure A Strategic Plan Marin County voters passed Measure A, the County’s 1/2-cent transportation sales tax, in 2004. A Strategic Plan for this measure was developed that outlines how collected funds will be spent. This plan is routinely updated to reflect current agency strategies. As many projects are also funded partially through Measure A revenues, the relationship of the CIP to this Strategic Plan is important.


September 26, 2013

The Strategic Plan discusses strategies in four areas. Each strategy and key capital improvements are described as follows:

• Strategy 1: Develop a seamless local bus transit system that improves mobility and serves community needs including special transit for seniors and the disabled (paratransit services). This strategy includes transit capital investments.

• Strategy 2: Fully fund and ensure the accelerated completion of the Highway 101 Carpool Lane Gap Closure Project through San Rafael. This strategy is a capital improvement project that is effectively completed.

• Strategy 3: Maintain, improve and manage Marin County’s local transportation infrastructure, including roads, bikeways, sidewalks, and pathways. This category includes capital improvements for local and regional streets, roads and paths.

• Strategy 4: Reduce school‐related congestion and provide safer access to schools. This category includes capital projects related to safe routes and safe pathways to schools.

The Strategic Plan includes proposed allocations for each strategy through Fiscal Year 2024/2025. Within this plan of revenues and expenditures, key capital projects between 2012 and 2020 have been identified and are summarized in Table 17. Table 17: Marin County Measure A Strategic Plan Capital Projects

Strategy FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20

Strategy 1: Local Bus Transit

Sub-strategy 1.1: Local

Bus Transit System

$7,708,724 $8,014,876 $7,629,000 $7,843,225 $8,062,806 $8,287,876 $8,518,573 $8,755,037

Sub-strategy 1.2: Rural

Bus Transit System

$1,237,561 $1,056,618 $618,568 $635,937 $653,741 $671,990 $690,695 $709,868

Sub-strategy 1.3: Special

Needs Transit Service

$1,875,095 $1,949,564 $1,855,703 $1,907,811 $1,961,223 $2,015,970 $2,072,085 $2,129,604

Sub-strategy 1.4: Bus Transit Facilities

$1,314,494 $2,710,364 $1,237,135 $1,271,874 $1,307,482 $1,343,980 $1,381,390 $1,419,736

Strategy 2: US 101 Gap Closure*

Strategy 3: Local Infrastructure


September 26, 2013

Strategy FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20

Sub-strategy 3.1: Major

Roads $1,996,278 $2,550,000 $3,162,000 $5,228,935 $13,636,212 $7,500,000 $7,045,772 $2,609,147

Sub-strategy 3.2: Local

Roads for All Modes

$2,671,610 $2,594,662 $2,669,507 $2,746,222 $2,824,856 $2,905,456 $2,988,070 $3,072,750

Strategy 4: School Access

Sub-strategy 4.1: Safe

Routes to School

$575,000 $575,000 $590,000 $260,000 $600,000 $610,000 $620,000 $630,000

Sub-strategy 4.2: Crossing

Guards $840,000 $975,000 $910,000 $845,000 $1,015,000 $880,000 $905,000 $1,015,000

Sub-strategy 4.3: Safe Pathways

$617,271 $621,386 $75,000 $1,230,458 $75,000 $1,312,595 $75,000 $1,399,899

Note: *US 101 Gap Closure completed; thus, no more allocations under Strategy 2. Source: Transportation Authority of Marin, Strategic Plan, May 2013.

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project and Funding The Marin‐Sonoma Narrows (MSN) section of US 101 is a nationally and regionally significant highway linking the San Francisco Bay Area and Oregon. It is also the only continuous north/south route through Marin County. The State designated the Narrows as an Inter‐Regional Route of Significance, and US 101 is listed as a Focus Route in California’s 1998 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. As a result of these various designations, the MSN Project has received State discretionary funding on four separate occasions. The existing segment (monitored Segment 3G) of US 101 through the Narrows has two lanes in each direction, has sections that do not meet current freeway standards (including expressway sections with at-grade intersections) and consistently maintains a poor LOS in many sections. The MSN Project consists of widening approximately 17 miles of US 101 from four to six lanes by adding one high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction; creating a controlled access freeway section through the historic “Narrows,” and upgrading the highway to current freeway standards from State Route (SR) 37 in Novato to Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma.


September 26, 2013

Project funding was awarded in prior years. In May 2008, the CTC awarded $66.04 million in Inter‐regional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funding to the project. This increases available funding to nearly $280 million out of an estimated $745 million total project cost for a Phase 1 Project when combined with the $82.4 million in Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds, $52 Million in STIP funds, and previously committed Federal, State, and regional funding. TAM, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and Caltrans have developed four individual projects which make up the Phase 1 Project. Three Marin County projects are:

• HOV Lanes in Novato - HOV lanes have been added through median widening. This includes northbound HOV lanes from SR 37 to north of Atherton Boulevard and southbound HOV lanes from SR 37 to Rowland Boulevard. Both lanes were constructed and opened to traffic in August 2012.

• Southerly Interchange – a new interchange, adding on to the existing Redwood Landfill

overcrossing, and supporting frontage roads will be built to serve San Antonio Road, enabling the closure of uncontrolled access points.

• San Antonio Curve Correction – the mainline highway curve across the Marin/Sonoma

county line at San Antonio Creek will be reconstructed to lower the existing highway grade just north of the creek in order to improve sight distances. A new US101 bridge over San Antonio Creek is included. The highway will be raised upward to prevent future freeway closures due to periodic flooding.

A final early project is the construction of a new interchange and supporting frontage roads to serve Petaluma Boulevard South and closes uncontrolled access points. This project is being combined with a project to reconstruct the Petaluma River Bridge, including widening for high‐occupancy vehicle lanes. A continuous bike route is planned through all four projects of MSN Phase 1 by utilizing a combination of Class I (off-street path) and II (on-street, striped) bicycle facilities. Recent Project Funding Identified in California Transportation Commission Programs The California Transportation Commission manages several funding programs, including the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), funds from Propositions 1B and 116, and the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists include allocations for each of California’s counties. The share for Marin County includes both general program and specific project amounts. The most recently adopted California Transportation Commission allocations for Marin County projects are shown in Table 18. The most recent STIP (adopted in March 2012) has allocations from Fiscal Year 2012/13 until Fiscal Year 2016/17. Table 18: State Transportation Improvement Program Projects in Marin County Project Program

Amount FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17

San Francisco, Doyle Drive Extension $4,000 $4,000 Marin-Sonoma Narrows: San Antonio Road Mitigation $3,205 $3,205


September 26, 2013

Planning, Programming and Monitoring (MTC) $113 $21 $22 $23 $23 $24

Planning, Programming and Monitoring (TAM) $605 $239 $200 $166

Route 101, Bus Stop Improvements $1,823 $1,823 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Bicycle Improvements $35 $35

San Francisco, Doyle Drive Extension, Phase 2 $4,000 $4,000

Bus Stop Improvements (10S-037) $1,923 $1,923 Miller Creek Road Bicycle Lanes, Route 101 – Pacheco Hill $407 $45 $362

Note: Funds are in $1,000’s; Source: California Transportation Commission, March 2012. Marin County originally received funds through the adoption of Proposition 1B in 2006. This proposition created the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). In the original 2007 adopted program, CMIA funds were key funding sources to help complete three major projects in Marin County:

• The widening of westbound Interstate 580 westbound to northbound US 101 connector in San Rafael (completed in 2010). The completion eased congestion for traffic traveling to and from the East Bay via the Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge.

• The construction of HOV lanes within Novato (part of the Marin‐Sonoma Narrows

project) has received CMIA funds, a project was completed in 2012.

• The construction of interchanges and partial HOV lanes between Novato and Petaluma (also part of the Marin‐Sonoma Narrows project) was scheduled to receive CMIA funding in 2012.

The State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) lists 15 projects in Marin County as part of the most recent project list developed in 2012. The project list is shown in Table 19. The projects primarily consist of roadway safety improvements and projects addressing storm damage, including culvert replacement, drainage system upgrades, embankment and slope reconstruction, retaining wall construction, and bridge railing replacement. Table 19: State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects

Route and Location Description Amount Project Year SR 1: Near Marin City, from Ross Drive to Tennessee Avenue

Replace culverts and upgrade drainage system $1,720 2012/13

SR 1: In Mill Valley, at Ash Street Rock slope protection $920 2012/13 SR 1: Near Stinson Beach, 0.2 mile north of Dipsea Trail Construct tie-back wall $3,240 2012/13

SR 1: Near Mill Valley, at 0.1 mile north of Loring Avenue Install anchored wire mesh $1,317 2012/13

SR 1: Near Olema, 1.8 miles south of Olema

Reconstruct embankment and replace culvert $2,030 2012/13

SR 1: Near Point Reyes Station, at Petaluma Road

Reconstruct slope with retaining wall $2,320 2012/13

SR 1: Near Marshall, 1.5 miles south of Marshall Petaluma Road

Replace culvert and install rock slope protection $2,820 2012/13


September 26, 2013

Route and Location Description Amount Project Year SR 1: Near Muir Beach, 0.3 mile north of Seacape Drive Construct tie-back wall $8,935 2012/13

SR 1: Near Muir Beach, 0.2 mile north of Cold Stream Fire Road Construct tie-back wall $9,167 2012/13

SR 1: Near Slide Ranch, 2.1 miles north of Muir Woods Road

Construct soldier pile wall with tieback $12,787 2012/13

SR 1: Near Muir Beach, at Cold Stream Road Construct retaining wall $3,010 2012/13

SR 1: Near Bloomfield, at Estero Americano Bridge No. 27 Replace bridge $10,042 2015/16

US 101: In Marin County at Various Locations Upgrade bridge rail $8,734 2014/15

US 101: In San Rafael, at Freitas Parkway Overcrossing No. 27-0080, Lucas Valley Road Undercrossing No. 27-0059 and North San Pedro Road Undercrossing No. 27-0014S

Replace bridge railings and rehabilitate deck $2,780 2014/15

I -580: Near Greenbrae, at Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Overcrossing No. 27-0074, at Bellam Boulevard Undercrossing No. 27-0073L

Upgrade bridge rail $3,384 2014/15

Note: Funds are in $1,000’s Source: Caltrans State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), 2012. Recent Project Funding Identified in Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Additional transportation projects are also ongoing in Marin County. Many have been recognized in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), updated by MTC in May 2012. The listing of RTIP projects are shown in Table 20. In addition to these identified funding programs, additional capital transportation investments are made from time to time. These often involve funding from local sources (such as development fees or development agreements) or from specialized funding made available but not incorporated into multi‐year funding documents. Table 20: Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Projects

RTP ID Project/Program Total Project Cost

Committed Funds

Discretionary Funds

21306 Improve interchange at U.S. 101/Lucas Valley Road - project development $ 3 $ - $ 3

21325

Improve U.S. 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor (includes modifying access ramps, new bus stops, improving transit stops and facilities, and adding pedestrian/bicycle facilities)

$ 181 $ 49 $ 132

98154 Implement Marin Sonoma Narrows Stage 1 (Marin County) $ 222 $ 222 $ -

98179 Improve U.S. 101/Tiburon Boulevard interchange - project development $ 2 $ - $ 2

230105 Replace Pacific Way Bridge $ 8 $ 1 $ 7

230252 Improve local transit frequencies and service spans in Marin County $ 5 $ - $ 5

230422 Install traffic signal and modify roadway at the intersection of Anderson Drive/East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

$ 6 $ - $ 6


September 26, 2013

RTP ID Project/Program Total Project Cost

Committed Funds

Discretionary Funds

230694 Local street and roads operations and maintenance $ 204 $ 88 $ 116

240005 Implement local air quality and climate protection strategies countywide $ 24 $ - $ 24

240034 Construct Golden Gate Multi-modal transfer facility at Larkspur Ferry Terminal $ 4 $ - $ 4

240039 Widen Novato Boulevard between Diablo Avenue and Grant Avenue $ 20 $ - $ 20

240041 Improve Downtown Novato Transit Facility $ 4 $ - $ 4

240043 Expand Marin Transit's Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) and real time system $ 1 $ - $ 1

240044 Construct multi-modal transit hubs/green mobility hubs $ 6 $ - $ 6

240045 Enhance facilities for Muir Woods Shuttle and West Marin Stagecoach $ 1.4 $ 0.1 $ 1.3

240078 Implement new technologies to manage transit systems $ 2 $ - $ 2

240456 Improve the intersection at Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Red Hill Avenue/Center Boulevard (known as "The Hub") - project development

$ 1 $ - $ 1

240552 Construct multi-use pathway connecting Cal Park tunnel and the Ferry Terminal in Larkspur

$ 15 $ 14 $ 2

240644 Implement senior mobility program countywide (includes free transit passes for seniors, safe routes, subsidized rides and volunteer ride program)

$ 26 $ - $ 26

240660 Improve local arterials parallel to U.S. 101 and I-580 $ 43 $ - $ 43

240662 Implementation of Station Area Plans in anticipation of SMART $ 29 $ - $ 29

240678 Implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements countywide including Safe Routes to School elements

$ 123 $ 15 $ 108

240691 Marin Sonoma Narrows HOV Lane and corridor improvements $ 109 $ - $ 109

240712 Implement regional planning policies $ 22 $ - $ 22

240713 Evaluate multi-modal options including trolley, Ross Valley to San Rafael $ 1 $ - $ 1

240714 Improve Major Roads and related Infrastructure $ 59 $ - $ 59

240715 Implement One Bay Area Grant Pilot Priority Conservation Area improvements $ 1 $ - $ 1

240723 Transit operations and maintenance $ 242 $ - $ 242 240724 Transit Capital $ 25 $ - $ 25 240729 US 101 Gap Closure San Rafael $31 - $31

Note: Amounts shown in millions of year-of-expenditure dollars. Source: Plan Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission RTIP, May 2012 Project Funding Identified in TAM Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Strategic Plan Since the 2011 CMP, a new transportation funding source has become available to Marin County. In November 2010, County voters passed Measure B, which increased the annual vehicle registration fee (VRF) by $10 to fund transportation improvements. Collection of the $10 VRF began in May 2011. In July 2011 the TAM Board adopted the VRF Strategic Plan, as required by the VRF Expenditure Plan, to explain how the funds will be distributed and to describe the oversight process. The VRF Strategic Plan serves as the programming document for the programs and projects that are contained in the three elements defined in the Expenditure Plan.


September 26, 2013

The Measure B Expenditure Plan identifies the following three elements for which collected Measure B funds are programmed:

• Element 1 is used to maintain and improve local streets and Class I pathways, including, but not limited to, road maintenance, new facilities, safety improvements, emergency pothole repair, crosswalk and accessibility enhancements, intersection control, drainage improvements, streetscape improvements, and Class I bicycle and pedestrian pathway maintenance and improvements. Element 1 is divided into two sub-elements: Element 1.1 for local streets for all users and Element 1.2 for Class I bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

• Element 2 is used to implement a Mobility Management Program that implements mobility

options for seniors and persons with disabilities, supports and enhances paratransit (e.g. Whistlestop Wheels), creates a “Paratransit Plus” program to serve older seniors who may not qualify for service under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and implements other innovative programs to provide mobility to seniors as an alternative to driving.

• Element 3 is used to implement three core strategies and programs, including: 1) School

Safety and Congestion Reduction; 2) Local Marin County Commute Alternatives to enhance or expand existing employer and employee based alternative programs to reduce single occupancy commuting; and 3) Alternative Fuel Infrastructure and Promotion to support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure, vehicles, and education programs.

The Measure B VRF Strategic Plan includes proposed allocations for each element through Fiscal Year 2020/2021. These allocation amounts are summarized in Table 21.


September 26, 2013

Table 21: Marin County Measure B Strategic Plan Capital Projects

Element FY 2012/13

FY 2013/14

FY 2014/15

FY 2015/16

FY 2016/17

FY 2017/18

FY 2018/19

FY 2019/20

Element 1: Local Streets

Element 1.1: Local Streets - $

2,241,873 $ 2,192,400 $

2,192,400

Element 1.2: Bike/Ped Pathways

$100,000 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400 $104,400

Element 2: Transit for Senior and Disabled

Element 2.2: Transit for Senior and Disabled

$777,578 $808,178 $730,800 $730,800 $730,800 $730,800 $730,800

Element 3: School Safety and Congestion

Element 3.1: School Safety and Congestion– Crossing Guard

$165,625 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

Element 3.1: School Safety and Congestion– Street Smart

$50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

Element 3.2: Commute Alternatives

$218,762 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

Element 3.3: Alternative Fuel Promotion

$499,338 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000

Source: 10-Year Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Revenue and Programming Summary, Transportation Authority of Marin, 2013.


September 26, 2013

Project Funding Identified in Local Jurisdictions’ Bicycle Plans Marin County’s local jurisdictions have adopted Bicycle or Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plans with planned related infrastructure improvements. By reference, the Marin County CMP recognizes those plans and planned facilities. Individual bicycle and pedestrian improvements will be implemented as scheduled by local agencies, and as funding becomes available. Funding sources will vary, and include TFCA funds, as well as Measure A, Safe Routes to Schools, and other local funds.


September 26, 2013

8. Deficiency Plan Procedures

Purpose and Intent of Legislation California Government Code Sections 65089.3, 65089.4, and 65089.5 govern the conformance process. These sections require that TAM determine every two years whether Marin County and cities and towns within the county conform to the requirements of the CMP based on information obtained through monitoring. If TAM believes that a local government is not conforming to CMP requirements, it must then hold a noticed public hearing to determine areas of nonconformance. If after the public hearing TAM still believes that the local government is not conforming to CMP requirements, it must provide written notice to the local government citing the specific instances of nonconformance. The local government then has 90 days to remedy the instances of nonconformance. If after 90 days the local government has not remedied the nonconformance instances, TAM will make a finding of nonconformance and notify the State Controller to withhold certain gas tax subvention funds. Local Government Conformance Requirements CMP legislation has established the following requirements of a conformance determination for local jurisdictions:

• Maintain the highway LOS standards outlined in the CMP (Chapter 2). • Participate in adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan when highway and roadway

LOS standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. • Participate in a program to analyze the impact of land use decisions, including the estimate

of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts. Specific requirements and recommendations are outlined in the Land Use Analysis Program element of the CMP (Chapter 5).

If either Marin County or cities and towns within the county do not meet each of these CMP requirements when TAM is scheduled to make its conformance determination for each jurisdiction (“Jurisdiction” referring to the local government that has the greatest segment distance within its boundaries per CMP definition), the jurisdiction is found in nonconformance and may risk losing an increment in its gasoline tax subvention funds and not having projects programmed in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Local Government Monitoring Requirements TAM must take active steps to ensure that Marin County and each city and town in Marin County at least biennially conform to each requirement of the CMP legislation. Monitoring must be done for several reasons:

• Congestion is projected to increase, which will waste valuable time and add to the transportation costs of goods and services.

• Congestion causes energy to be wasted and contributes to worsening of air quality.

• Coordinated growth management and transportation planning is essential to minimizing

both travel time and costs.


September 26, 2013

The CMP legislation specifies that jurisdictions that do not demonstrate that they conform to the requirements are to lose street and highway subvention money. Many jurisdictions use this money for maintenance of existing streets and roads so as not to neglect their transportation infrastructure. Outlined below are the major actions that may be required by each jurisdiction to ensure CMP conformance. TAM currently performs all required LOS monitoring.

Maintaining Highway Level of Service Standards

TAM biennially monitors level of service on segments of CMP designated routes within Marin County and its jurisdictions. Where a segment falls within two or more jurisdictions, the jurisdiction responsible for the segment is the jurisdiction with the greatest segment mileage. The monitoring program occurs during the PM peak period (4:30 PM to 6:30 PM). The traffic counts also should be taken in the spring (April or May), with counts at fall periods acceptable when needed (September or October). Consistent with this, the 2013 CMP update includes counts done in October and November 2012. The LOS analysis is to be based on these counts consistent with the LOS methods outlined in the highway LOS standards (Chapter 2). Transportation improvements or changed economic conditions may result in changes in LOS over consecutive monitoring cycles. If LOS is determined to be A, B, or C for any year that is monitored, the monitoring frequency could be reduced to every other CMP (four years), until such time as the segment is found to operate at LOS D or worse. Any segment determined to operate at LOS D should then be monitored for each CMP (two year intervals). Grandfathered facilities that currently operate at LOS F do not have to be improved, but nevertheless their conditions should be monitored with each CMP.

Participation in Required Deficiency Plans

Where roadway facilities experience congestion worse than the roadway LOS standards established in Chapter 2, the congestion should be monitored annually until the congestion eases. If the LOS standard is exceeded for two CMP cycles, the roadway is then considered potentially deficient. A determination to see whether a Deficiency Plan is required once the exempted trips allowed in state legislation are assumed not to exist. If TAM determines that a segment that has not been grandfathered does not meet the adopted LOS standards (D for principal arterial roadways; E for freeways), then that jurisdiction must:

• Immediately propose and designate funds for measures that improve the LOS to meet or be better than the adopted LOS standard which TAM would then incorporate into the CIP, or

• Create a “deficiency plan” in accordance with CMP requirements. A deficiency plan requires the local government to: 1. Analyze the cause of the deficiency and define improvements to the facility that

maintain the LOS standard, or 2. Define improvements that have a measurable improvement on the transportation

system’s LOS or substantial air quality benefit and determine the cost of the improvements.


September 26, 2013

TAM has published guidelines governing specific issues related to Deficiency Plan preparation on its website. For all deficient facilities (including those that are grandfathered), TAM and its partnering agencies should develop an “operational plan” to minimize congestion on these facilities. Operational plans are envisioned as a description of capital projects, multi‐modal programs, and/or roadway management techniques that a local jurisdiction intends to advocate for implementation by that jurisdiction or others (such as Caltrans for State facilities). All incorporated cities and towns in Marin County, along with unincorporated County areas, are in conformance at this time. Therefore, no deficiency plans will be required by this CMP.

Maintaining Program to Analyze Impacts from Land Use Decisions

Land use impact analysis monitoring requirements are detailed in the Land Use Analysis Program (Chapter 5). There are two general requirements:

• For any general plan update or amendment or major development proposal that would result in a net increase of 100 or more PM peak hour vehicle trips, local governments are to forward information on the application to TAM and run the county model to obtain transportation impact information related to the amendment/development. The jurisdiction is responsible for conducting the model run if requested by TAM, which could be performed: (1) by the jurisdiction, (2) by a consultant hired by the jurisdiction, or (3) by TAM (only if staff is available to do the work). The jurisdiction requesting the model run reimburses the County for the cost of the model run. Model results are useful to cities and the County as part of their current review and approval processes, especially for purposes of defining the necessary mitigation measures.

• Each jurisdiction is to be responsible for preparing and transmitting land use data to TAM

for use in the MTM, as well as tracking land use buildout through issuance of planning and building permits. This requirement ties in with the existing property development (“PROPDEV”) database that local governments are already using, as well as the County Community Development Agency’s Countywide Land Use Database. TAM biennially runs the MTM in order to update future year LOS information in the CMP. Local governments can find this information useful when updating the land use and circulation elements of their general plans.


September 26, 2013

9. Study References

• 2012 Transportation System Monitoring Report for Transportation Authority of Marin, Kimley-Horn and Associates (Final, March 2013).

• Congestion Management Program Update for Transportation Authority of Marin, DKS Associates, 2011.

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Alice Fredericks, TAM Chair RE: Executive Director Compensation Adjustment (Action), Agenda Item 5c Dear Commissioners: On July 23rd, at a special meeting of the TAM board, the Board of Commissioners met in closed session to continue consideration of the performance of TAM’s Executive Director Dianne Steinhauser. The Board started the review of Ms. Steinhauser’s performance at the June TAM board meeting. The Board received in advance guidelines by which to consider executive performance. At the June review, Ms. Steinhauser responded to requests from the last performance review of October 2011. She reviewed activities of TAM and referred to the TAM Goals for 2013 as adopted by the TAM Board in April 2013. The TAM board members asked a number of questions regarding activity at TAM. After deliberation, the TAM board agreed to grant Ms. Steinhauser a 3% salary increase. The Board acknowledged bumps in the road but expressed overall confidence in Ms. Steinhauser and her team. They recognized that overall management of the agency was excellent. The Board had several recommended areas of improvement for the Executive Director and her team. These recommendations include the following:

• Always work through the TAM representative when appearing before local city or town councils

• Make sure controversial projects appear before the Board frequently for consultation and direction

• While working through City Managers is good, working through the TAM representative on controversial issues is preferred

• Staff is to bring options and alternative viewpoints to the Board for consideration and recommend, not advocate

• The Board is to be consulted regarding public concerns, with individual Board members available to deal with the public

• Board members are to be educated adequately to enable them to respond to questions about the activities of TAM

• Given that TAM has a number of consultants performing work for TAM, better monitoring and reporting on the need for their service and resultant products is desirable

TAM Board Item 5c Page 2 of 2 September 26, 2013

• Interagency communication is excellent ; better communication with the public is desirable

• Staff should take care to bring all policy decisions to the TAM board.

The Board also asked for specific policy to be returned to the Board regarding the hiring of previous TAM board members as consultants. Also, the Board recognized the need for considering an expanded subcommittee process. The Board acknowledged the goals adopted by the Board in April and recognized the need to consider performance relative to adopted goals. At the July evaluation session, the Board recommended a 3% compensation increase now, not to be retroactive. The Board also agreed to reconsider the compensation issue and the request for an additional 2.5% when a new TAM Deputy Director is hired. Recommendation: TAM Board approves a 3% compensation increase, now, for the Executive Director, not to be retroactive.

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Suzanne Loosen, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Proclamation of Support for Marin National Plug In Day (Action), Agenda Item 5d Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The second annual Marin National Plug In Day will be held on Sunday, September 29, 2013, at the Marin Civic Center, adjacent to Sunday Farmer’s Market. The Marin National Plug In Day is one of over 60 local celebrations of National Plug In Day, sponsored nationwide by Plug In America, the Sierra Club, and the Electric Auto Association. TAM is a major sponsor of the Marin event, hosted by the Golden Gate Electric Vehicle Association, the local chapter of the Electric Auto Association, a national non-profit educational organization that promotes the advancement and widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Marin’s Plug In Day will provide hands-on experience with electric vehicles and charging equipment, as well as the opportunity to test drive one of several market-available electric vehicles. This collaborative event includes EV owners, advocates, vendors, government agency representatives, and TAM’s Electric Vehicle Advisory Working Group. The TAM Board approved in June a contribution of $8,000 in Measure B funds for this important event. The event will also include a speaking opportunity for local officials to help encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. Event details are listed below: Event: National Plug In Day Marin 2013 Date: Sunday, September 29, 2013; 8 am to 3 pm Location: Marin Civic Center, adjacent to Sunday Farmer’s Market The attached Proclamation of Support will help promote the event to local governments, businesses, press, and the public. Additional outreach is underway. The TAM staff provided a brief overview of the event at the September 9 Executive Committee meeting. The Executive Committee recommended this item to the full Board for approval. Recommendation Authorize Chair Fredericks and Executive Director Steinhauser to sign a proclamation of support for National Plug In Day on behalf of the TAM Board.

Attachment: Proclamation of Support for Marin National Plug In Day 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle

Item 5d - Attachment

Proclamation of Support for Marin National Plug In Day 2013

Promoting Electric Vehicles in Marin on September 29, 2013

The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is committed to supporting efforts that promote sustainable transportation choices for residents, businesses, and visitors alike. Supporting Marin National Plug in Day 2013 is consistent with TAM’s goal of contributing to a reduction of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, which according to local studies can account for as much as 60% of air pollution originating in Marin County each year.

TAM is a major sponsor of Marin National Plug in Day 2013, which will be held on September 29, 2013 at the Marin County Civic Center to promote the importance of expanding the number of electric vehicles in Marin. The event is hosted by the Golden Gate Electric Vehicle Association, a chapter of the Electric Auto Association—a non-profit educational organization that promotes the advancement and widespread adoption of battery electric vehicles.

Across the country, National Plug In Day 2013 will be celebrated in more than 60

cities “to heighten awareness of today's widespread availability of plug-in vehicles and highlight the benefits of all-electric and plug-in hybrid-electric cars, trucks, motorcycles, and more,” according to national organizers Plug In America, the Sierra Club, and the Electric Auto Association.

By showcasing market-available electric vehicles in Marin, offering EV test drives, demonstrating the ease of fueling, and providing accurate information about the benefits of driving electric, Marin National Plug In Day 2013 will help educate and motivate more members of the public to consider a plug in electric vehicle for themselves, the next time they consider purchasing a new vehicle. The Transportation Authority of Marin supports Marin National Plug In Day 2013 as part of its larger effort to accelerate adoption of electric vehicles and improve air quality, which includes outreach and education, promoting zero-emission transportation, and facilitating the installation of EV charging stations in Marin County. TAM looks forward to continuing to promote electric vehicle adoption in Marin County. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Alice Fredericks Dianne Steinhauser Commission Chair Executive Director

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation Linda Jackson, Manager of Planning RE: Programming Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Funds (ACTION), Agenda Item 5e Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program was devised with the intent to integrate the federal surface transportation program with the region’s land-use and housing policies to provide supportive transportation investments. OBAG includes a new funding program called the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program. The goal of the PCA Program is to support the new regional plan, Plan Bay Area, by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands in the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. The four North Bay Counties, which include Marin, have $1.25 million each in PCA funds for programming to projects to commence in FY 14/15 or FY 15/16. On April 25, 2013, the TAM board reviewed and adopted the Marin PCA Guidelines to determine how our local share of $1.25 million will be programmed. See guidelines in Attachment A. TAM staff issued a Call for Projects for Marin PCA funds on May 21, 2013 with a deadline to receive applications by June 26, 2013. We received seven applications from six applicants. TAM staff conducted a preliminary evaluation to determine if the applications met the minimum requirements. All applications but one application have met the requirements. ABAG confirmed that one application was not in a designated PCA. This application was eliminated from further evaluation. Six of the seven applications that have met the preliminary requirements were further reviewed by an Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee consisted of David Chan, TAM Programming Manager; Mark Shorett, Regional Planner for ABAG; and Paul Jensen, Community Development Director of San Rafael. San Rafael’s planning manager was selected because San Rafael did not submit a PCA application or otherwise had a bias.

TAM Board, Agenda Item 5e Page 2 of 5 September 26, 2013 The Evaluation Committee scored applications with the goal of determining which ones best met the goals of the Marin PCA Program in accordance to the adopted guidelines. The Evaluation Committee discussed the merit of each project in detail, examined scores assigned to each criterion, and weighted each project against another one of its type. Based on this process, the Evaluation Committee has recommended funding the projects and amounts as shown in Attachment E. At its September 9th meeting, the Executive Committee unanimously voted to recommend the projects and funding levels to the TAM Board as shown in Attachment E. Recommendation: Recommend that the TAM Board adopt a project priority for PCA funds in accordance to Attachment E. Background The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program to establish policies and programming of federal surface transportation funds. OBAG was devised with the intent to integrate the federal surface transportation program with the region’s land-use and housing policies to provide supportive transportation investments. OBAG included funding geared towards supporting Priority Development Areas—TAM has programmed those funds, per action taken in November 2012. OBAG also includes a new funding program called Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). The goal of the PCA Program is to support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands in the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. These values include globally unique ecosystems, productive agricultural lands, recreational opportunities, healthy fisheries, and climate protection (mitigation and adaptation), among others. The PCA Program should also be linked to SB 375 goals which direct MPOs to prepare sustainable community strategies which consider resource areas and farmland in the region. The PCA program is split into two elements, one for the four North Bay Counties (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano) receiving a total of $5 million and the other five counties in the Bay Area will compete for the remaining $5 million under a Regional PCA Program. Because good candidates existed in each county, the four North Bay Counties agreed to equally share the $5 million so that each North Bay County will receive $1.25 million for programming. PCA funds are federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and must comply with all federal requirements. The funds will be programmed for projects to commence in FY 14/15 or FY 15/16. On a case-by-case basis, some limited funds may be programmed in FY 13/14 for preliminary engineering (PE) if a project can demonstrate the ability to obligate the funds in a short timeframe. A workshop on the PCA program was held by TAM on April 10, 2013, where stakeholders were invited to hear about the program and proposed criteria for funding, and given a chance to comment and ask questions. Representatives from MTC and ABAG were present to inform the attendees on the intent of the PCA program and the Regional PCA Program guidelines. Approximately 17 people attended, representing several local and county jurisdictions, as well as environmental, open space protection, and other advocacy groups.

TAM Board, Agenda Item 5e Page 3 of 5 September 26, 2013 On April 25, 2013, TAM adopted the Marin PCA Guidelines (Attachment A) that direct how TAM’s $1.25 million PCA funds will be programmed. Call for Projects TAM staff issued a Call for Projects for Marin PCA funds on May 21, 2013 with a deadline to receive applications by June 26, 2013. We received seven applications from six applicants, including the following:

• Fairfax’s Fairfax Trails • Marin Agricultural Land Trust’s (MALT) Thacher Ranch Easement Acquisition (near

Tomales) • Marin County’s Mill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Path Bridge Study • Marin County’s Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement • Mill Valley’s Bayfront Park Recreational Bay Access Pier Rehabilitation • Novato’s Pacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition • San Anselmo’s Sunny Hills Ridge Trail

The descriptions and locations of these applications can be found in Attachment B and Attachment C, respectively. Preliminary Evaluation TAM staff conducted a preliminary evaluation (Attachment D) to determine if applications met the minimum requirements. Applications that meet the minimum requirements were further evaluated for priority by an evaluation committee, explained below. In a PCA The Marin PCA Program requires projects to be in a PCA. While the Regional PCA Program allows applications not in a PCA but connected to a PCA to be eligible, the TAM Board established on April 25, 2013 that only applications in a PCA will be eligible. ** All but two applications have initially met this requirement. However, questions arose for two applications, the Fairfax Trails and San Anselmo’s Sunny Hills Ridge Trail applications, as to their eligibility under this criterion. The applications were submitted to ABAG for determination. Using GIS mapping, ABAG confirmed that San Anselmo’s Sunny Ridge Trail application is in the Central Marin Ridgeland PCA and the Fairfax Trails application is not in a designated PCA. Therefore, San Anselmo’s Sunny Ridge Trail application was further evaluated for prioritization and the Fairfax Trails application was eliminated from consideration. Eligible Project Eligible applications must be one of five eligible project types, listed on Attachment A, that include planning activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, visual enhancements, habitat/environmental enhancements, and land acquisition or easement. All applications have met this requirement. Requisite Local Match Eligible applications must include a local match that is no less than a dollar for dollar match to the PCA funds requested. All applications have met this requirement with three applications, Mill

TAM Board, Agenda Item 5e Page 4 of 5 September 26, 2013 Valley’s Bayfront Park, MALT’s Thacher Ranch and Novato’s Pacheco Hill Parkland projects, offering to contribute a greater than the minimum 50/50 local match amount. Eligible Applicant A non-governmental agency that does not have an existing agreement with Caltrans to receive federal transportation funds must partner with an eligible applicant. All applicants, except MALT, are eligible applicants. MALT is proposing to partner with the California Coastal Conservancy who is eligible to receive federal transportation funds. Based on this partnership, MALT has met the requirement. Land Acquisition Projects Two of the seven applications are land acquisition projects: MALT’s Thacher Ranch Easement Acquisition and Novato’s Pacheco Hill. As described in the guidelines, land acquisition and easement projects are permitted in an area without open space policy protection in place. Both applications have met this requirement. Another requirement inherent in the MTC policy is that land acquisition and easement projects would need another funding source to swap with federal transportation funds since these federal transportation funds are prohibited from land acquisition. It was originally anticipated that TAM would need to facilitate fund swapping on behalf of applicants that do not have the resources to fund the swap internally. We are pleased to report that both applicants for land acquisition will be able to accept federal transportation funds, use the federal transportation funds for another eligible transportation capital project, and use local funds to acquire the targeted land or easement. Based on the proposals from the applicants, TAM will not need to facilitate any funding swapping transaction for these land acquisition projects. Land acquisition and easement projects funded with PCA funds will be required to include restrictions in their deeds to retain the rural nature of the land on a permanent basis. Evaluation Committee Six of the seven applications that have met the preliminary requirements noted above were further reviewed by an Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee consisted of David Chan, TAM Programming Manager; Mark Shorett, Regional Planner for ABAG; and Paul Jensen, Community Development Director of San Rafael. San Rafael’s planning manager was selected because San Rafael did not submit a PCA application or otherwise have a bias. Linda Jackson, TAM Planning Manager, also participated in the discussions but did not prioritize the applications. Evaluation Process The Evaluation Committee scored applications with the goal of determining which ones best met the goals of the Marin PCA Program in accordance to the adopted guidelines. The Evaluation Committee discussed the merit each project in details, examined scores assigned to each criterion, and weighted each project against another one of its type. Based on this process, the Evaluation Committee has recommended funding the projects and amounts as shown in Attachment E.

TAM Board, Agenda Item 5e Page 5 of 5 September 26, 2013 Five of the six projects were recommended for funding. Marin County’s Mill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Path Bridge Study was not recommended for funding. The Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement and Bridge Study applications were both scored at the bottom of the list. Of the two projects, the Evaluation Committee ranked the Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement application slightly higher because it is a capital project that can be constructed in the near term. The Pathway bridge study would require additional unidentified funding if the study becomes a capital project. The Evaluation Committee reasoned that a capital project should be valued higher than a study unless there were some extenuating circumstances, such a study to remedy a flaw that has resulted in traffic accidents or emergency scenarios, or bypassing the study would result in the loss of other leveraged funds. Furthermore, Marin County’s ranked its Pathway Improvement project above the bridge study. Of the five remaining recommended applications, they were ranked in the following order:

1. MALT’s Thacher Ranch Easement Acquisition 2. Novato’s Pacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition 3. Mill Valley’s Bayfront Park Recreational Bay Access Pier Rehabilitation 4. San Anselmo’s Sunny Hills Ridge Trail 5. Marin County’s Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement

With $1.25 million available, the first four applications were funded at 100% of the requested amounts. The last recommended application, Marin County’s Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement, was funded with the remaining available funds. Executive Committee At its September 9th meeting, the Executive Committee unanimously voted to recommend the projects and funding levels to the TAM Board as shown in Attachment E. Marin Public Works Association (MPWA) Staff presented the PCA Program and the recommended funding to the MPWA at its September 19th meeting. No objections were raised with the recommendation. Recommendation: Recommend that the TAM Board adopt a project priority for PCA funds in accordance to Attachment E. Attachment A: Marin PCA Guidelines Attachment B: Applications Received Attachment C: Maps of Application Locations Attachment D: Preliminary Evaluation Attachment E: Evaluation Committee’s Recommendation

Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Programs (Adopted April 25, 2013)

Adopted Marin PCA Program

Administrator TAM

Program Goals Support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands for residents and businesses, including globally unique ecosystems, productive agricultural lands, recreational opportunities, healthy fisheries, and climate protection (mitigation and adaptation), among others.

Funding Amount $1.25 million

Funding Source Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds

Programmed FY FY 14/15 and FY 15/16. On a limited case‐by‐case basis, some funds may be programmed in FY 13/14.

Screening Criteria PCA Designation: Only projects in an existing PCA will be considered.

Regionally Significant:Indicators of regional significance include a project’s contribution to goals stated in regional habitat, agricultural or open space plans, countywide Plans or ABAG’s PCA designations. Applicants should describe who will benefit from the project and regional (greater‐than‐local need) it serves.

Open Space Protection In Place: Linkages to or location in an area that is protected from development. Land acquisition or easement projects would be permitted in an area without open space policy protections in place.

Non‐Federal Local Match: 1:1 minimum match, but greater consideration will be given to projects with higher than the minimum match.

Meets Program Goals: Projects that meet one of the following program goals from Group A and all of program goals from Group B: Group A o Protects or enhances “resource areas” or habitats. o Provides or enhances bicycle and pedestrian access in an open space /parkland resources. Notable examples are the Bay and Ridge Trail Systems. o Supports the agricultural economy of the region. Group B o Provides safety benefits. o Readiness to proceed to construction. o Does not replace existing funding source.

Item 5e - Attachment A

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

Eligible Applicant Local governments (cities, counties, towns), county congestion management agencies, tribes, water/utility districts, resource conservation districts, park and/or open space districts, land trusts and other land/resource protection nonprofit organizations based in Marin County are invited to nominate projects. Applicants are strongly encouraged to collaborate and partner with other entities on the nomination of projects, and partnerships that leverage additional funding will be given higher priority in the grant award process. Partnerships are necessary with cities, counties, or CMAs in order to access federal funds. Project must have an implementing agency that is able to receive a federal‐aid grant (master agreement with Caltrans)

Emphasis Areas / Eligible Projects

1. Planning Activities 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities/ Infrastructure: On‐road and off‐road trail facilities, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming, lighting and other safety related infrastructure, and ADA compliance, conversion and use of abandoned rail corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Visual Enhancements: Construction of turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas. 4. Habitat / Environmental Enhancements: Vegetation management practices in transportation rights‐of‐way, reduce vehicle‐caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats, mitigation of transportation project environmental impacts funded through the federal‐aid surface transportation program. 5. Protection (Land Acquisition or Easement 1) or Enhancement of Natural Resources, Open Space or Agricultural Lands: Parks and open space, staging areas or environmental facilities; or natural resources, such as listed species, identified priority habitat, wildlife corridors, wildlife corridors watersheds, or agricultural soils of importance.

1 Land acquisition or easement projects would need another funding source to swap with federal STP

funds since federal STP funds are prohibited from land acquisition.

Item 5e - Attachment A

Sponsor Project Title DescriptionAmount Requested

Fairfax Fairfax Trails The Fairfax Trails Project will help to secure access and repair/enhance improvements to recreational pedestrian trails throughout the Town. The trail system is used for pedestrian recreation and circulation, but also serves as a evacuation system for emergencies. The Town has identified 121 historic usage pedestrian recreation trails, many of which have been neglected or have blocked/limited access. This grant would provide the resources to:1) identiify any public easements with clouds on title or with limited/blocked access and develop a strategy to address those issues and 2) make repairs or improvements to selected portions of the trail system including signage.

TDB

MALT Thacher Ranch Easement Acquisition

MALT is working with the Thacher family to purchase an agricultural conservation easement over their 627 acre ranch south-east of the town of Tomales in Marin County. The Thacher family has operated the property as a beef and sheep ranch for fifty years and are seeking to sell an easement to MALT to help consolidate the ownership of the ranch as they face a near-term generational transfer of the property, as well as to generate funds for a new sheep milk dairy. MALT has been working with the family for the past year to prepare for the acquisition of the agricultural conservation easement that is expected to close escrow in January 2014. The proposed agricultural conservation easement would prohibit subdivision of the ranch and would not allow for new residences. The easement also includes MALT’s affirmative agriculture provisions that require the ranch to be in productive commercial agriculture and has an approved Agricultural Management Plan. The ranch is approximately 15 miles from Petaluma, which provides for all necessary agricultural commodity markets as well as businesses that provide goods and services to agricultural operators.

$250,000

Project Applications Received

Attachment B

T:\15. CMA Funding Program\15.02 Federal Programs\OBAG\PCA\PCA Application Evaluation

Item 5e -Attachment B

Marin County Mill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Path Bridge Study

This project will study the structural condition and potential replacement of the four bridges on the Mill Valley-Sausalito multiuse path which are functionally obsolete. Conversion of this former railroad right of way to a multiuse paved pathway in 1981 was one of the first rails-to-trails conversions in the United States. The bridges do not meet current standards for width and are supported by multiple wood pilings within the waterway, some of which are built on the original railroad trestles, creating potential impediments for water flow. The four bridges span 30, 80, 100, and 110 feet, respectively. The potential replacement bridges would meet current design standards, remove structural supports from within the waterway, and be constructed of more durable materials. The structural analysis will also determine what type and depth of pilings for the abutments would be necessary to support the new structures as deeper footings will be required in going with a clear span design to remove the need for intermediate supports in the water.

$227,500

Marin County Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Rehabilitation

The project will rehabilitate the Mill Valley-Sausalito multiuse pathway by repaving it for its entire length, repairing and raising shoulders, and raising segments that are currently subject to tidal flooding out of the flood plain. Other amenities, including benches and interpretive signage will be installed as appropriate. In addition to a smooth pavement surface, improvements will be installed for ADA compliance as necessary.

$878,000

Mill Valley Bayfront Park Recreational Bay Access Pier Rehabilitation

Bayfront Park is Mill Valley’s only park providing water access to Richardson Bay, a Priority Conservation Area. Bayfront Park is traversed by the Bay Trail System, providing recreation opportunities to people from all over the Bay Area region, not just residents of Mill Valley. This trail provides the only bicycle and pedestrian connection between Sausalito and the rest of Marin County. A recreational bay access pier was built in the 1970s, which included a fixed pier connecting to the park’s regional trail system, a gangway that adapted to tidal changes, and a floating pier providing direct access to the water. The pier was severely damaged in a winter storm in 2005. The gangway and fixed portion of the pier were torn apart and damaged beyond repair. Some of the piers may have been damaged as well. Efforts to repair the pier have been hindered by a lack of available funding, but the community has continually expressed a desire to restore it. The purpose of this project is to rebuild the pier to 1) be ADA compliant, 2) provide access to aquatic parkland by human-powered craft such as sea kayaks and support a budding local eco-tourism economy, 3) prevent destruction of sensitive tidal habitat by dogs and people by providing a controlled access point to water 4) repairing erosion damage to tidal estuary and replanting with native vegetation.

$100,000



Novato Pacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition

The City of Novato seeks to purchase 91 acres of undeveloped land from The Trust for Public Land (TPL) in order to a) protect the property’s natural resources, b) create a buffer from any future development on the adjacent St. Vincent-Silveira property, and c) create a new City park around a low-income, senior housing community.

Acquisition of the TPL Property would protect valuable natural resources. The property includes 51 acres of oak woodland on hillside, ridgeline and hilltop that comprise the northern half of Pacheco Hill, a prominent landform along the Highway 101 corridor at the southern end of Novato. This oak woodland provides valuable raptor habitat. The property also includes 30 acres of former baylands with 5.6 acres of Freshwater Emergent wetlands and freshwater ponds, providing additional important wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge.

$500,000

San Anselmo Sunny Hills Ridge Trail Construct a hiking trail along a ridge adjacent to Town. The proposed trail would connect three parks; Memorial, Red Hill, and Sorich, which ties into the larger network of regional trails. Two years ago San Anselmo staff and Open Space Committee presented this trail concept to the Town Council which gave its preliminary support. Approximately half of the trail currently exists and is used with informal consent from the property owners. This grant would fund a CEQA Initial Study, development of necessary plans, investigation of open space protection opportunities, and purchasing materials for signs, steps, and switchbacks.

TDB

Total Requested $1,955,500



Attachment C

Maps of Application Locations

Item 5e - Attachment C

POIN

T REYES N

ATIO

NA

L SE

AS

HO

RE

GO

LDEN

GA

TE N

AT

ION

AL REC

REATIO

N AREA

San Francisco County

Co

ntr

a C

ost

a C

ounty

Sonoma County

BolinasStinson

Beach

MuirBeach

Inverness Park

Inverness

Olema

Fairfax

Novato

San Rafael

Sausalito

Mill Valley

Corte Madera

Marshall

Tomales

WoodacreLagunitas

Nicasio

To

ma

l es

Ba

y

San Pablo Bay

Bodega Bay

Drakes Bay

Bolinas Lagoon

Tomales Road- Petaluma

Marin County

Nicasio Reservoir

Kent Lake

Stafford Lake

Alpine Lake

Bon Tempe Lake

Laguna Lake

Soulajoule Reservoir

Drakes Estero

Abbotts Lagoon

San FranciscoBay

#Mount Tamalpais

Panoram

ic Hig

hway

Pie

rce

Po

int R

oa

d

Walker C

reek

Olema Creek

Lagunitas C

reek

Point ReyesLighthouse

Point ReyesStation

Go

lde

n G

ate

Brid

ge

Chileno Creek

Novato Creek

Redwood C

reek

Marshall-Petalu m a Roa d

Po

int R

eyes Pet

aum

a R

oad

Sir F

ra

nc i

s D

ra

k e B

oul

evard

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

Novato Boulevard

Lucas Valley Road

Bolinas - Fairf ax R

oad


POIN

T REYES N

ATIO

NA

L SE

AS

HO

RE

GO

LDEN

GA

TE N

AT

ION

AL REC

REATIO

N AREA

San Francisco County

Co

ntr

a C

ost

a C

ounty

Sonoma County

BolinasStinson

Beach

MuirBeach

Inverness Park

Inverness

Olema

Fairfax

Novato

San Rafael

Sausalito

Mill Valley

Corte Madera

Marshall

Tomales

WoodacreLagunitas

Nicasio

To

ma

l es

Ba

y

San Pablo Bay

Bodega Bay

Drakes Bay

Bolinas Lagoon

Tomales Road- Petaluma

Marin County

Nicasio Reservoir

Kent Lake

Stafford Lake

Alpine Lake

Bon Tempe Lake

Laguna Lake

Soulajoule Reservoir

Drakes Estero

Abbotts Lagoon

San FranciscoBay

#Mount Tamalpais

Panoram

ic Hig

hway

Pie

rce

Po

int R

oa

d

Walker C

reek

Olema Creek

Lagunitas C

reek

Point ReyesLighthouse

Point ReyesStation

Go

lde

n G

ate

Brid

ge

Chileno Creek

Novato Creek

Redwood C

reek

Marshall-Petalu m a Roa d

Po

int R

eyes Pet

aum

a R

oad

Sir F

ra

nc i

s D

ra

k e B

oul

evard

Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

Novato Boulevard

Lucas Valley Road

Bolinas - Fairf ax R

oad


Map Prepared by Marin Agricultural Land Trust 02.2013

P A C I F I C O C E A N

·|}þ1

·|}þ1

·|}þ37

2Ù101US

2Ù101US

w w w . m a l t . o r g

Ê0 5 10

Miles

Thacher627 Acres

Marin County Farmland Protected byARIN GRICULTURAL AND RUSTM A L T

Agriculturally zoned land larger than 20 acres

National Park Service lands in agricultural use

Public lands

Residential, urban & other uses

Marin County roads

Farmland protected by Marin County conservation easement

Farmland protected by MALT conservation easement


david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

MALT's Thacher Ranch

THORNTONEASEMENT

SARTORIEASEMENT

MCISAAC EASEMENT

800 0 800 1,600400Feet

Thacher Ranch

Thacher Ranch627 Acres

©02.2013


david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

MALT's Thacher Ranch

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

Gate 6 Road

East Blithedale Avenue

Vasco CourtLocation Map

Mill Valley-Sausalito Path

Item 5e - A

ttachment C

david

Typewritten Text

Marin County's Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Improvement

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

S Hw

y 10

1

Bayfront Park

Pier

Pickleweed Inlet

North-South Multi-UseRegional Path

Item 5e - A

ttachment C

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

Mill Valley's Bayfront Park Pier Improvement

G

PELICAN LN

HAW

K RI

DGE

CT

DEL

PRADO

RD

HAWK RD

RED MARIN

VIE

WDR

DRWIL

D OAK

SCENIC DR

VIEW DRMEADOW

GREEN OAK DR

SUNRISELN

DR

PANORAM

A

WAY

FALLEN LEAF

DR

CLUB VIEW

VALL

EY D

R

DR

BOLLING

BOLLING CIR

MARIN

VALLEY

MARIN

CLAY CT

VIEW RIDGE DR

PL

MA

RC

H F

IELD

CT

GR

EEN

OA

KP

L

LAS

SOUTH O

AKW

OOD DR

CIRC

APIT

AIN

NU

RSE

CIR

HA

THA

WA

Y D

R

HU

TCH

INS

WA

Y

MUROC LAKE DR

SUN

SET

DR

LO

CITY OF NOVATO

90‐ACRES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION – LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R1)

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY 1.1 T0 5.0 UNITS PER ACRE

Page 5

Item 5e - A

ttachment C

smarshall

Polygon

smarshall

Polygon

smarshall

Polygon

smarshall

Polygon

smarshall

Polygon

mmcniff

Typewritten Text

F-5 2.

brendanm

Text Box

The Trust for Public Land property

brendanm

Text Box

St. Vincent-Silveira property

brendanm

Polygonal Line

brendanm

Polygon

brendanm

Text Box

Contiguous City-owned open space

brendanm

Text Box

Low-income, senior housing community

brendanm

Line

brendanm

Line

brendanm

Text Box

The Trust for Public Land Property

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

Novato's Pacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text


david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

San Anselmo's Sunny Hills Ridge Trail

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

Sponsor Project Title In a PCA 1 Eligibile Project 2

Requisite Local Match 3

Eligible Partner, if needed 4 Comments

Fairfax Fairfax Trails No Yes Yes Not needed No N/A N/A Not in a PCA; no further evaluation

MALTThacher Ranch Easement Acquisition

Yes (Tomales Bay Watershed) Yes Yes

California Coastal Conservancy Yes None $0

The California Coastal Conservancy will be able to swap funds internally

Marin CountyMill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Path Bridge Study Yes (SF Bay Trail) Yes Yes Not needed No N/A N/A

Marin CountyMill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Rehabilitation Yes (SF Bay Trail) Yes Yes Not needed No N/A N/A

Mill ValleyBayfront Park Recreational Bay Access Pier Rehabilitation Yes (SF Bay Trail) Yes Yes Not needed No N/A N/A

NovatoPacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition

Yes (St. Vincent's & Silveira) Yes Yes Not needed Yes None $0

Novato will be able to swap funds internally

San Anselmo Sunny Hills Ridge TrailYes (Central Marin Ridgelands) Yes Yes Not needed No N/A N/A

1 Only projects in an existing PCA will be considered. Determination will be confirmed with ABAG.2 Only eligible projects as listed in Marin PCA Program Guidelines will be considered.3 Minimum local match of 1:1 is required.4 Partnership is necessary with a public agency that is able to receive a federal-aid grant for non-profit and other organizations.

Preliminary Evaluation

Eligibility RequirementsLand

Acquisition Project

(Yes/No)

Amount of Swapped

Funds Needed for Acquisition

Existing Open Space Policy

Protection

Attachment D


Item 5e - Attachment D

Sponsor Project

TotalProjectCost

PCA FundRequested

E.C. Ranking Comments

Recommended PCA Funds

MALTThacher Ranch Easement Acquisition $1,628,000 $250,000 1 $250,000

Novato Pacheco Hill Parkland Acquisition $6,600,000 $500,000 2 $500,000

Mill ValleyBayfront Park Recreational Bay Access Pier Rehabilitation $223,000 $100,000 3 $100,000

San Anselmo Sunny Hills Ridge Trail $160,000 $80,000 4 $80,000Marin County

Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway Rehabilitation $1,756,000 $878,000 5

County prioritized this project as 1 of 2. E.C. ranked capital projects higher than studies. $320,000

Marin County

Mill Valley-Sausalito Multiuse Path Bridge Study $455,000 $226,000 6 County prioritized this project as 2 of 2. $0

Total $10,822,000 $2,034,000 Recommended $1,250,000

$1,250,000

$0

Evaluation Committee Recommendation

Remaining

Available PCA Funds

Attachment E


Item 5e - Attachment E

September 2013 TAM Board Meeting

Caltrans Report

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM: Post Mile Report Prepared by Caltrans District 4 Office of Project Management PSE: Plans, Specifications, and Estimate September 18, 2013 EA: Project Expense Authorization Number

Page 1 of 4

PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE Greenbrae Corridor Project; MRN-101 PM 7.2/8.9; On Route 101 from 0.2 miles south of Tamalpais Drive Interchange to 0.3 miles north of Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Interchange Scope: Freeway and Interchange improvements. Cost Estimate: $143 M (Total cost for project in Draft Enviro Document) Schedule: Start Construction: TBD End Construction: TBD Project Issues: Project scope under review by TAM Board

Estero Americano Bridge; MRN/SON-1 PM 50.3/50.5; On Route 1 from 0.1 miles south of Estero Americano Bridge to 0.1 mile south of Valley Ford Road Scope: Replace bridge. Cost Estimate: $5.7M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2016

End Construction: Fall 2017

Bridge Rail Replacement and Deck Rehabilitation; MRN-101 PM 12.7/14.7; On Route 101 at Freitas Parkway Overcrossing, Lucus Valley Road Overcrossing and North San Pedro Undercrossing. Scope: Replace bridge rails. Cost Estimate: $1.8M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2015


Bridge Rail Replacement MRN-101 PM 1.5/14.0; On Route 101 at various locations Scope: Replace bridge rails. Cost Estimate: $6.5M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2015

End Construction: Fall 2016 Bridge Rail Replacement MRN-580 PM 3.3/4.5; On Route 580 at Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard. Scope: Upgrade bridge rails. Cost Estimate: $1.9M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2015


Roadside Paving – MRN-101 PM 1.6/4.1; On Route 101 various location Scope: Roadside Paving Cost Estimate: $2.0M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2015


Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 2 of 4

PROJECTS IN DESIGN PHASE Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract B3 - San Antonio Curve Correction; MRN-101 PM 26.5/27.6 & SON-101 0.0/1.2; On Route 101 from 0.3 mile north of San Antonio Rd. to 1.2 mile north of Marin/Sonoma County line Scope: Realign Route 101 to the west to correct horizontal alignment and construct a new mainline San Antonio Creek Bridge. The project will extend frontage roads constructed in other MSN contracts and pedestrian/bicycle facility along San Antonio Creek. Cost Estimate: $52M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Summer 2015 End Construction: End of 2016 Utility relocation work is anticipated to start in Fall of 2013.

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PHASE

AC Overlay; MRN-101 PM 0.0/8.5; On Route 101 from the Golden Gate Bridge to Corte Madera Creek Scope: Overlay mainline pavement with asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $24M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction activities started in March 2012. Completion of construction contract anticipated in November 2013. The Contractor will performing repair of Route 101 pavement as follows: • Pavement digout, repairs, and resurfacing at the approach to Richardson Bay Bridge in Marin on September 20

and 21, 2013. The repair will require night lane closures. • Resurfacing of northbound Route 101 at Lucky Drive in early October 2013. The work will require night lane

closures for one week. • Pavement repair and resurfacing of Southbound Route 101 on-ramp at Sir Francis Drake Blvd. in mid October

2013. The work will require a traffic detour.

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract B1 - Redwood Landfill Interchange and Frontage Roads; MRN-101PM 18.6/23.3; On Route 101 from 0.1 mile north of North Novato Overhead to 0.6 mile south of Marin/Sonoma County line Scope: Construct a new interchange at Redwood Landfill Road. The project also includes new frontage roads and pedestrian/bicycle facility. Cost Estimate: $27M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Project awarded on Sept 14, 2012. Completion of construction contract anticipated in Fall 2015. Project Issues: Night time lane closures on Route 101 are anticipated in mid October 2013. Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract A2 – Southbound HOV lane extension in Marin; MRN-101 PM 20.5/20.9; On Route 101 from Novato Creek to Franklin Overhead Scope: Construct southbound HOV lane. Cost Estimate: $3.5M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Project awarded on November 8, 2012. Construction activities started in June 2013 and completion of all major construction activities is anticipated in November 2013. Completion of construction contract is anticipated in Spring 2014.

Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 3 of 4

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract A3 – Northbound HOV lane extension in Marin; MRN-101 PM 22.0/24.1; On Route 101 from 0.2 mile north of Atherton Avenue Overcrossing to 1.4 mile south of Redwood Landfill Overcrossing Scope: Construct a new northbound HOV lane. Cost Estimate: $14.7M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Project awarded on November 1, 2012. Completion of construction contract anticipated in Spring 2014. Storm Damage Slope Repair – MRN-1 PM 11.0; On Route 1 near Web Creek Scope: Slope stabilization using soil nail launcher and install Rock Slope Protection (RSP). Cost Estimate: $1.2M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Project awarded on October 1, 2012. Completion of construction contract is anticipated by the end of September 2013.

Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 4 of 4

STORM DAMAGE PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL / DESIGN PHASE

Project EA Location/Description Construction

Capital Cost Begin

Construction

4S220 Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 10.95, In Marin County, at Web Creek. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$1.9M Fall 2015

4S770

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 0.9/1.0; In Marin County from Ross Drive to Tennessee Ave. Scope: Replace culverts.

$880K Fall 2013

3S900

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 6.6, In Marin County, near Muir Beach, 0.3 mile north of Seacape Drive. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$5.8M Spring 2016

3S910

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 7.7, In Marin County, near Muir Beach, 0.2 mile north of Cold Stream Fire Road. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$6.1M Spring 2016

4S780

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 24.7, In Marin County, approximately 0.6 south of Olema. Scope: Replace twin culverts with a bridge.

$2.3M Fall 2016

2G890

Project in Environmental Phase (PAED) Location: Route 1, PM 8.1, In Marin County, approximately 2.1.miles north of Muir Beach Road. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall

$7.7M Fall 2016

4S450

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 31.3, In Marin County, near Point Reyes station at Petaluma Road. Scope: Construct buried piles cut off wall.

$1.1M Fall 2013

4S660 Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 8.1/10, In Marin County, at Slide Ranch. Scope: Construct retaining wall.

$1.7M Fall 2015

2G870

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 1.4, In Marin County, in Mill Valley near Ash Street. Scope: Install Rock Slope Protection

$135K Fall 2014

1SS58

Project in Environmental Phase (PAED) Location: Route 1, PM 2.2, In Marin County, Near Mill Valley, 0.2 mile north of Loring Avenue. Scope: Install rock slope protection (RSP) and improve drainage.

$485K Fall 2015

1SS59

Project in Environmental Phase (PAED) Location: Route 1, PM 2.7, In Marin County, near Mill Valley, 0.6 mile south of Panoramic Highway. Scope: Re-grade slope and repair down drain.

$896K Fall 2015

Item 6

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Greenbrae Corridor Project Recommendations (Action) – Agenda Item 7 Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The Working Group has now concluded its extensive efforts to examine the transportation systems and potential solutions to address congestion within the area referred to as the Greenbrae Corridor. The attached Summary of Working Group’s Recommendations was sent to participating members on August 13th for review and comment. Comments received have been incorporated into the attached version for the Board’s information and use. Also attached is the draft Working Group meeting minutes for your information and use. These minutes remain “draft” as the Working Group did not take action to approve the minutes. Staff is currently working with Caltrans to assess the technical merits of the Working Group’s recommendations as well as developing additional recommendations for the Board’s consideration. At the time of the preparation of this report the assessment and staff recommendations are being finalized and will presented to the Board during the meeting. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Working Group members for their contributions and efforts to formulate a set of recommendations to the Board. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board accept and consider the recommendations from the Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group, and further consider an additional suite of recommendations from staff on transportation improvements in the corridor. Staff is recommending the Board provide direction on the project scope, schedule, and funding plan and that these recommendations are forwarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Attachments: (1) Summary of Working Group’s Recommendations.

(2) Draft Minutes from the August 19, 2013 Meeting (3) Draft Minutes from the August 26, 2013 Meeting

September 26, 2013 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Highway 101 Greenbrae/ Twin Cities Corridor Improvement Project – Summary of

Working Group’s Recommendations. Dear Commissioners: Discussion and Recommendations At the February 28th TAM Board meeting the Chair requested that the Executive Director form a Working Group which will act as an advisory group to provide a recommendation to best address the congestion in the Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor project area. This action was in response to local opposition to the recommended project included in a draft environmental document released for public comment from December through February. The Working Group held eleven meetings over a six month period to engage in a dialog amongst its members to better understand the complex conditions and constraints in the corridor associated with vehicles, bikes, pedestrians and transit travel patterns and needs. The Working Group received multiple presentations from TAM’s technical team, members of the public, and Caltrans. The intent of this thorough review of the need for congestion relief and safety improvements was to re-acquaint Working Group members and the public who have been involved in the development process with the extensive efforts undertaken by TAM, Caltrans, Member Agencies and Stakeholders over the years but also to provide a foundation of information for Working Group members and public stakeholders who are newly focused on the Greenbrae Corridor. Information provided to the Working Group included, but was but not limited to (1) a summary of comments received on the draft environmental document, (2) existing traffic conditions on the highway and local roadway network, (3) future traffic forecasts and growth projections for the area (4) identification of key problems in the corridor and the affected area as defined both historically and by the Working Group, (5) review of “fact sheets” describing the alternatives considered and the alternatives screening process used to select the preferred alternative proposed in the draft environmental document, (6) an overview of the multi-modal considerations, user groups and travel patterns, (7) newly developed traffic analyses on focused sections of the corridor, and (8) structural analysis and existing capacity of the structures over Corte Madera Creek. Note that the Working Group devoted more than half its meetings to considering new options that were brought forward by the public or interested advocacy groups. The Working Group continually accepted public comment throughout the process and at all meetings. The Working Group considered improvement proposals presented by some participating stakeholders and invited the public to submit

Item 7 - Attachment 1

TAM Board Item 7 Page 2 of 4 September 26, 2013

improvement options as well, for evaluation by the TAM team and Caltrans. These newly submitted improvement options were developed by both individuals and groups working over many months to create a solution to the congestion and safety issues in the corridor. The proposals were presented directly to the Working Group by the individuals or groups who formulated them. The Working Group discussed and considered these proposals and later selected elements, or in some cases the entire improvement proposal while developing their recommendations. Due to the complex nature of this undertaking the presentations, studies and Working Group recommendations have been developed multi-directionally to focus on the southbound highway improvements and associated ramps, northbound highway improvements and associated ramps, and transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recommendation by the Working Group Southbound Improvements: At the July 22nd Working Group Meeting a unanimous recommendation was made to further study potentially effective features of the three southbound improvement proposals under consideration. The proposals were referred to as the Southbound Option “C” Phase 1, the Marin Deserves Better southbound plan and the Bracken plan. The specific features include the following:

• Add a two lane off ramp to SFD with an auxiliary lane extending to the north • Widen the southbound Corte Madera Creek crossing to three lanes plus path • Save the pedestrian overcrossing • Add a southbound auxiliary lane from the SFD on-ramp • Add an eastbound Fifer Avenue right turn onto Nellen Drive

The Working Group requested the future studies include considerations such as potential environmental impacts associated with bridge widening and effectiveness of improvements to manage motorist delay. The Working Group also recommended these future studies could be phased with an independent time line for implementation. This recommendation is forwarded to the full TAM board for consideration. Northbound Improvements: The Working Group was re-acquainted with the Wornum ½ diamond interchange improvement option as proposed in the draft environmental document and subsequently modified based on public comments, lowering the structure, eliminating the majority of the retaining wall along Redwood Highway in favor of an open structure, and allowing for a park, planting or public art in the newly opened area under the structure. The Working Group also discussed the Marin Deserves Better northbound proposals. Based on technical analysis, Caltrans and TAM determined the MDB plans were not feasible as submitted, although there were beneficial features in the plans that could be considered for incorporation into a final plan for the northbound improvements. At the meeting of August 19th Working Group member Brad Marsh proposed eliminating the off-ramp to Wornum Drive as proposed in the Wornum ½ diamond option and re-establishing an off-ramp at Industrial Way. As this was a new proposal TAM and Caltrans agreed to analyze the “Marsh” plan and report back to the Group at its next meeting. TAM and Caltrans analyzed the Marsh plan and determined it to be infeasible and that it contained fatal flaws that eliminated it from further consideration. The distance between the on ramp at



Wornum Drive and the off ramp at Industrial was far too short to allow safe movements for vehicles entering and exiting the highway. However TAM and Caltrans recognized certain beneficial features from the Marsh plan and the MDB#2 plan that could be combined with the ½ diamond option to create a hybrid option that would satisfy the purpose and need of the project. This new hybrid option was referred to as the “Marsh plan revised.” At the August 26th meeting the Working Group discussed specific features of the Marsh plan revised, namely the addition of the braided off ramp accessing eastbound/westbound SFD creating a separation from the on-ramp to Highway 101. Although some members of the Working Group were supportive of the modification, others did not support the hybrid option. Discussion amongst the members continued on the hybrid option as well as other features in the study area. A motion was made as follows:

• Add an auxiliary lane from Tamalpais Drive north • TAM and appropriate officials to study the US101/I580 Interchange for another possible

solution to congestion • Ask Caltrans and the County of Marin to consider widening ESFD to two lane where it now

changes from 2-1 lane • Study additional options to allow traffic to merge better from ESFD onto I580

The motion passed 4-2. The nay votes were from Supervisor Katie Rice representing the Ross Valley and from Mayor Gary Phillips representing San Rafael. This recommendation is forwarded to the full TAM Board for further consideration. Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Options The Working Group discussed and considered elements of transit bus stops, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities either existing, as proposed in the draft environmental document (DED), or potential improvements in the study area or beyond. The Working Group received multiple presentations from the TAM team reviewing, in detail, existing conditions such as the Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC), bus stops including access routes to the bus stops, proposed bus stops, access routes and local/regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities contained in the DED. The Working Group also received a report on the origins and destinations of users of the POC. The Working Group considered a number of newly submitted proposals similar to the highway and local roadway process described above. The groups and individuals presented their proposals to the Working Group for further discussion and consideration. Following a lengthy discussion by the Working Group and a significant amount of public testimony during Working Group meetings particularly in June, July, and August, the following motions were made.

1) Complete the north/south greenway as follows: • The preferred alignment is the new bridge crossing Corte Madera Creek following the

north/south greenway • The second preferred alignment would follow the existing trestle and use the trestle

structure, if feasible



• The third preferred alignment would be on the highway off-ramp (currently in the DED). Maker of the motion stated do this regardless of others. Widening of the northbound off-ramp is recommended under any scenario.

The motion passed unanimously.

2) Wornum Drive Intersections/Crossings: • Undercrossings on Wornum Drive are preferred if safe/environmentally and economically

feasible • If not safe/environmentally/economically feasible then institute safe surface treatments • Make a good faith effort to determine feasibility


3) Pedestrian Overcrossing: • Retain existing POC

The motion passed unanimously. 4) Prioritization: • Proceed to environmentally clear all three options and implement as funds allow in phases

as follows: 1) the undercrossings from Sandra Marker Trail to Redwood Highway along Wornum Drive, 2) multi-use path from Redwood Highway to the south side of the creek along levy behind RV Park and 3) the creek crossing.

The motion passed unanimously. 5) Long Term Vision • MDB submitted posters of bike/ped elements for improvements such as an overcrossing

near Tamalpais Drive. Put it in the pipeline to study in the future as a separate project for a long term vision.


This recommendation is forwarded to the full TAM Board for further consideration.


MEETING OF TAM’S Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group

Meeting #10

August 19, 2013 3:00 p.m.

Mill Valley/Sausalito Rooms

EMBASSY SUITES 101 McInnis Parkway

SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 10

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Alice Fredericks, Town of Tiburon, TAM Chair Ann Morrison, City of Larkspur, Alternate

Brad Marsh, City of Larkspur Carla Condon, Town of Corte Madera Diane Furst, Town of Corte Madera Tom McInerney, Town of San Anselmo Gary Phillips, City of San Rafael

Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors Member Absent: Dan Hillmer, City of Larkspur Guests Present: Dan McElhinney, Chief Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 4 Consultant David Parisi Staff Members Present: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Bill Whitney, Project Delivery Manager

Chair Fredericks called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 1. Chair Welcome and Working Group Introductions Chair Fredericks welcomed everyone to the meeting followed by the members of the Working Group introducing themselves. Member Phillips stated that he would be leaving this meeting at approximately 4:15 as he needed to attend the San Rafael City Council meeting which was set to begin at 4:30 p.m. Chair Fredericks announced that the facilitator previously working with the group, Gina Bartlett, was no longer available, and that she would be managing the meetings from now on. 2. Approve Draft Minutes from Meeting of July 8, 2013 (Action) Member Condon moved to approve the July 8, 2013 Minutes and Member Phillips seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.


TAM Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group August 19, 2013

Page 2 of 10

3. Agenda Review (Discussion) ED Steinhauser reviewed the agenda which would include a review of the northbound options. Member Furst requested that the draft minutes from today’s meeting as well as those from the July 22 meeting be made available at this Group’s meeting of August 26. She offered the Corte Madera Recreation Center for the upcoming meeting on August 26 and provided the names of Town staff who could assist with reserving the space for this meeting at no cost. After discussion, the Working Group indicated support for moving the meeting there. 4. Review and Recommendation of Northbound Improvement Options (Action) - Attachment

a. Presentation of Caltrans Review of Marin Deserves Better Northbound 1 and Northbound 2 Proposals (Discussion)

DS introduced Kai Chan who reviewed three northbound options for the Greenbrae Corridor Improvement project including the Marin Deserves Better (MDB) #1 Land Bridge, the MDB (Modified NB-E), and the Half Diamond (modified DED NB). During the review of the MDB #1 Land Bridge option, Mr. Chan and the team responded to questions and discussed with the Working Group:

• the increase in the number of decision points to three for motorists in the land bridge configuration vs. two in the existing conditions;

• that the land bridge would require the reconstruction of the structure over the creek, which is not a prudent use of funds particularly given the 20 year life span remaining; and

• that all being equal, this proposal would not work because it does not address the weaving problem in that area.

Mr. Chan summarized the review of the MDB #1 Land Bridge option and stated that the proposal was found unacceptable because of its inability to accommodate traffic demand, it will create congestion, and would require the reconstruction of the existing northbound ramps over the creek. He moved on to the second option - the MDB #2 Option. During the review, Mr. Chan and the team responded to questions and discussed with the Working Group:

• the weave between two lanes in the proposed plan which allows for the retention of the pedestrian overcrossing (POC) vs. the weave between three lanes in the Wornum Half-Diamond plan;

• the option’s objective to retain the (POC) by narrowing the proposal’s footprint;

• the “right lane overload” that occurs in this plan;

• the confirmation, by Deputy District Director McElhinney, of a statement made in the presentation that Caltrans, as the owner/operator of the facility finds this proposal unacceptable for further consideration;

• the request to consider design exceptions for this option as were granted to the Build plan, which Mr. Chan explained. He noted that the exceptions granted in the Build plan went through a rigorous design review with a geometrician to be found acceptable but he did not anticipate



Page 3 of 10

that the design exceptions required in this proposal would be justified due to being different design exceptions. ED Steinhauser added that when review of all proposals began on May 5, staff insisted that proposals submitted by the public be held to the same standard when considering design exceptions as were the original build plans. The exceptions in the Wornum Half Diamond plans were granted were different than what this proposal would need since they are considered as fatal flaws.

b. Brief Re-Acquaintance with Wornum Half-Diamond Project Option Mr. Chan presented the third option: Wornum Half Diamond (modified). Member Phillips thanked Mr. Chan for his presentation today. He stated that he needed to leave for another meeting but was intrigued by this third option and would look forward to the comments and recommendation that the group would make to the TAM Board for the northbound piece of the project. Mr. Chan and the team responded to questions and discussed with the Working Group:

• the concern that freeway backup at the offramp will continue since this plan does not increase throughput on East Sir Francis Drake (SFD) Blvd.

• the concern that traffic bound for the Ross Valley on SFD will be in the same two lanes of traffic going to the Richmond Bridge until the lanes split off at the creek. Mr. Chan explained that they start in two lanes which then widens to three – one lane for westbound traffic, one lane for eastbound traffic, and the middle lane accommodating traffic going either direction – which then widens to four lanes with two going westbound and two going eastbound. This design would serve to alleviate congestion.

• in response to a question regarding the number of merging lanes or weaves what would be required, he approached the map and provided an explanation of the location and number of weaves. Matt Haynes, Traffic Engineer from Fehr and Peers and part of the TAM team, added that this option will take 400-500 cars/hour which currently use Industrial Blvd to reach 101 north and interfere with the cars using the same ramp to reach the Richmond Bridge will no longer be part of the picture as they’ll enter at a different point. Additionally, an entire signal cycle on Drake will be eliminated since the traffic getting off the freeway towards the SFD/101 northbound intersection will take a different ramp.

• regarding improved traffic flow on SFD in both the east and westbound direction as a result of this option, Mr. Haynes said that it would save five minutes from Tiburon Blvd to SFD, and when travelling from Tiburon Blvd through the area on 101 the savings would be in the area of eight minutes.

There was a brief discussion about the possibility of adding a third lane on SFD at the intersection of Eliseo Blvd. to help to improve traffic flow as well as planning to further improve the signalization on SFD east of Hwy 101. Commissioner Condon suggested that a I-580/US 101 connector as the answer to the congestion in the project area. Member Morrison agreed and asked Caltrans to study the connector in San Rafael. Mr. McElhinney said he likes freeway to freeway connections but they take up a lot of real estate, require long-range planning, a regional buy in and there have been previous studies done on that. He added that he does not believe that it is in the plan, long-range, adopted by TAM or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.



Page 4 of 10

ED Steinhauser noted that Caltrans studied the possibility of building this connector but it was always with the understanding that the safety improvements in the Greenbrae corridor would move forward regardless of the outcome of the connector study. David Parisi, a team member, briefly reviewed this concept which had been presented to this Group on April 22 and explained that, with a connector, there would be a right-lane overload in the southbound direction between the connector and the SFD off ramp on Hwy 101. He stated that a motorist taking the connector to southbound 101 would increase their vehicle miles traveled by approximately 1.3 miles. In response to a question from a working group member, Mr. Parisi explained that the biggest cause of the northbound congestion in the project area is due to the merge of the Industrial traffic with the traffic exiting the freeway towards East SFD. Member Marsh suggested that there are intermediate steps that could be taken to relieve the congestion and he presented his version of a northbound approach. He proposed:

• A northbound auxiliary lane from Tamalpais

• No off ramp at Wornum

• An on ramp at Wornum

• An off ramp at Industrial

• No on ramp at Industrial

• The rest of the area stays the same

• Amend the project area in the diagram and recommend a 101/580 connector.

• Spend the rest of the money on the SMART Train Member Furst expressed support for the “Marsh Plan.” She added that throughout the process the project assumed a design specification to deal with all traffic heading to the Richmond bridge. However, if there is a connector someday, it takes the pressure off of engineering this project and there isn’t a need to over engineer and spend more money than the minimal amount to deal with the issues that exist now to satisfy long-term concerns. Member Condon agreed but said she did not want the Tamalpais overcrossing to be overlooked as it is part of the scope of this project since it presents a lot of safety issues. Member McInerney stated that he could not support funding from this project being given to SMART because the SMART Train will not relieve traffic congestion on SFD and in the Ross Valley. Likewise, the 580/101 connector would not have an impact on the Ross Valley. Instead, he’s focusing in on the problem of SFD traffic getting on and off Hwy 101. He expressed concern that some may not support the Build plan because it is TAM’s product. However, as Mr. Haynes confirmed, the Build plan will, in fact, ease traffic congestion for travelers on Highway 101 and going to the Ross Valley. In response to Member McInerney’s question regarding whether the Wornum half-diamond is a super complex structure, Mr. Haynes indicated that the auxiliary lane in question will not require right of way nor is it a complex structure.



Page 5 of 10

Responding to a question about capacity and lane jumping/merging in the off-ramp area, Mr. Chan indicated that signage could be one way to address the issue but that signalization is, in his opinion, the answer to these issues. ED Steinhauser added that the team met with Caltrans on these issues and received reassurance with these improvements that motorists will experience travel time savings and less congestion. Regarding a statement he made earlier in the meeting regarding a 101/580 connector, Deputy District Director McElhinney stated that a connector is not the solution for this area of congestion. Building a connector would be a long-range discussion, funding issues exist, and it has environmental issues associated with it. He said he does not want to discourage a discussion of a connector but it is not a silver bullet to problems in this corridor and he would not want the Working Group to lose the opportunity, now, to address the issues in this corridor. Member Furst said that striping is not an effective tool in preventing lane jumpers as everyone witnessed when it was implemented on Industrial Way. Member Furst referred to the Marsh Plan which has an on ramp at Wornum but none at Industrial and suggested that if Industrial is closed, it would allow for improved signalization at SFD. Mr. Haynes said that traffic entering at Wornum, rather than Industrial would require additional analysis to better understand whether future traffic movement would be allowed to exit at SFD. Member Marsh reviewed his plan again as no northbound Wornum off ramp; maintain an on-ramp at Wornum to alleviate traffic coming from the Ross Valley; an auxiliary lane starting at Tamalpais and extending to join with the exit at SFD; and an off ramp at Industrial (but no on-ramp). Additionally, he would like to study a 101/580 interchange and eliminate everything else in the Build project. Finally, if there is any project money remaining, he would like it to be given to SMART. Member Condon added clarification to her last comment and said she would like to focus on Tamalpais Avenue not only for bike/ped safety but also for auto traffic and she cited the high rate of accidents in that area. Member Rice expressed appreciation of Member Marsh’s vision but said that she would not be able to support a plan without having a better sense of the traffic impacts. She said she would need more information and so she would pass on making a judgment on his idea. She commented that the 580/101 connector could be recommended to the TAM Board as a future consideration but that it should not be considered as part of this project. She felt it important to make changes in the Greenbrae area and could not see much difference between the MDB2 and the Wornum half-diamond plans in terms of footprint and function. She added, however, that she thought the Wornum half-diamond will achieve goals better than MDB2 especially since Caltrans said they would not approve MDB’s plan. She finalized her comments by saying that she supports the Wornum half-diamond plan but wanted to talk about it in the context of bike/ped and transit connectivity at this Group’s meeting next week since this is another element and goal of this project and she wanted to have that conversation before she would consider giving money to SMART.

Director McElhinney provided a quick summary on the Marsh plan and noted that there would be a need for a braided ramp at some point between Wornum and Industrial.



Page 6 of 10

Member Marsh said he had no doubt there would be technical issues but he believes that the plan can be simplified and still see improvements to the corridor. ED Steinhauser said she thought there was some confusion on what trip origin and destination is being accommodated. She reiterated that the problem at this location is that there are too many destinations for traffic that are conflicting with each other. She added that staff would consider this new alternative if it was the will of the Working Group. Chair Fredericks suggested that the Group consider whether they wanted this alternative be taken as part of the package to TAM Board rather than have staff initiate analysis at this time. ED Steinhauser said that staff could bring analysis to the TAM Board or do their best to bring initial analysis back to the Working Group next Monday. Member Marsh summarized his idea and said that you take the on-ramp at Industrial and move it to Wornum then add an auxiliary lane from Tamalpais. Member Morrison made a motion to include the Marsh Plan as part of the recommendation to the TAM Board. Member Condon asked what the impact would be on access to the gas station and the shopping center where Trader Joe’s is located. Member Marsh said it would be the same. Motorists would get off the freeway or take the surface streets but to get back to the freeway, would have to drive an extra block to the Wornum on-ramp. Member Morrison asked about how the 180 homes being built on Tamal Vista would be affected? Member Marsh responded that if those homes are a concern, then the Build plan will complicate the matter even more. Chair Fredericks noted that member Morrison made a motion to take the Marsh Plan to the TAM Board for consideration but was not seconded, so she asked for a motion to take the Wornum Half-diamond and analysis of the Brad Marsh plan as a recommendation to the TAM Board. Member Rice moved to take to the TAM Board the Wornum Half-diamond and the Brad Marsh plan, as well, recognizing that further analysis of the Marsh plan would be needed. Some members were resistant to moving forward with a vote on the compound motion. Member McInerney stated he would be in favor of forwarding the Wornum half-diamond plan to the TAM Board but not the Marsh plans he had serious reservations with it. The Chair opened the item to public comment. c. Public Comment

Karen Nygren commended the Working Group for their efforts in working through the issues but was upset that after all this time it is being suggested that the original plan is what should be recommended



Page 7 of 10

to the TAM Board in spite of the lack of response to the public comments from the Environmental Document. She recommended “no project.” John Reed, Mayor of Fairfax, said he supported the Marsh plan and agreed that closing Industrial on-ramp would be a good thing if it is done in conjunction with building the bike/ped undercrossing which will be discussed at the Group’s meeting next week. Steve Cardellini, MDB, said that even though MDB’s most recent plan for the northbound improvements were rejected by Caltrans, his group strongly opposes the TAM build plan. He cited a four-page handout that a member of his group distributed at this meeting’s outset. He summarized that document by saying that: the plan does not increase throughput, congestion will get worse for traffic bound for the Ross Valley; local businesses will be adversely affected, Redwood Highway roads will be used by motorists who want to bypass the backup in the SFD exit lanes; the POC will be removed in spite of the public outcry to maintain this structure; and most of the trees between the creek and Tamalpais will be removed. He said that the real benefits of the plan’s improvements would only be experienced during peak traffic times for about three hours each workday. He requested the Group to use the funding for making real improvements as is being considered in the southbound direction and the bike/ped improvements. He suggested revisiting possible improvements to this area once eastbound SFD traffic is eased as a result of building the I-580/101 connector. Peter Chase of Corte Madera said that TAM has a plan that the community doesn’t support. Director McElhinney needs a plan that the community supports so he can build it. Marin Deserves Better brought ideas to TAM and asked the team to mold them into a plan and yet there is a wall of resistance around those ideas. He stated that the Working Group must come up with a statement from the TAM Board that includes alternatives to the Build plan and it must include a discussion of a 580/101 connector. Access to the Richmond Bridge is imperative. He asked the group to resist going forward with the Build plan elements as the only possible solutions; instead, be creative and come up with something other than the build solution. David Schonbrunn said if he was to recommend a plan, it would be the creative one put forward by Member Marsh. However, he added, all this planning is based on the foundational assumption that the public should be provided the infrastructure to, conveniently, be a solo driver. There is a need to reduce the greenhouse gas footprint, capital to provide infrastructure, and create incentives to discourage single-occupancy vehicles. He said he believes that there is slowdown in traffic on eastbound SFD to the Richmond Bridge. He believes that there is a need for ramp metering on the Tamalpais on-ramps, and he said he believes the reason that the highway does not perform in the PM hours is due to shopping center patrons and employees in Corte Madera. He believes that the Town of Corte Madera needs to do transportation demand management planning which makes Corte Madera’s problem everyone else’s. He finalized his comments by recommending consideration of a new eastbound lane on East SFD, via striping, as recommended by Mayors Phillips and Hillmer. Jean Severinghaus a resident of East Greenbrae, was supportive of the Marsh plan being explored since she believes the TAM plan on the northbound side is massive. I would support minimal improvements such as taxing, via transponder, when approaching the Richmond Bridge. She suggested removing the Richmond Bridge signage from the SFD area and replace them with signs that read “East Sir Francis Drake.” Kay Karshevsky, a resident of San Rafael, opposes the TAM Build plan because of its massive size and will destroy the POC. She said it is important that the bicyclists, pedestrians and the community be considered rather than worry only about the cars. She was supportive of maintaining the POC as an alternative to Wornum Drive , of building the underpasses and of the Marsh plan.



Page 8 of 10

Thomas Jackovics said he has commuted to Corte Madera from the East Bay for the past 25 years and he is forced onto SFD to cross over from I-580 to Hwy. 101. In the afternoon he is on 101 and forced onto SFD to get to Richmond Bridge. He said the TAM build project is disgusting and the public doesn’t support it at all. MDB is better but their proposals are not supported by Caltrans, so the only alternative is the “no build” option unless the Marsh plan proves viable at which point he would support that. Cindy Winter, a resident of Greenbrae, said she liked Brad Marsh’s plan. However, she wanted to speak to the unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in the area which is why she is supportive of the undercrossings. She noted that TAM sent a letter to the Corte Madera and Larkspur Councils saying that the local agencies must pay the maintenance costs on these paths forever, but it is her belief that TAM should pay for the maintenance of these undercrossings. She finalized her comments by saying that the Marsh plan provides the opportunity to build an undercrossing that would be beneficial. Julia Ritter, a Larkspur resident, a parent, and a Larkspur/Corte Madera Schools Board of Trustees, said she has been tracking the progress of this group and she wanted to reiterate some of the comments made earlier regarding the safety of school children. She said that children go to school at same time as rush hour, and it is her belief that bike/ped improvements should be part of the solution rather than adding car lanes. She said she endorsed the remarks made by Steve Cardellini and that she liked the looks of Brad Marsh’s plan. She asked this Group to ensure the POC is left intact or improved. Patrick Seidler of Transportation Alternatives for Marin thanked the Working Group for their efforts, complimented staff for tackling the issues put before them, and thanked MDB for their dedication, focus, and the work they’ve done. He said that MDB’s roundabout option deserved another look since they are a safe way to move traffic. He added that if an underpass in that section and have that interchange at 15 ft. above sea grade, the underpass can be built and it will not be below sea level. He urged the Group to look at this possibility. The bike/ped improvements are a good solution since they work with the northbound improvements. He finalized his comments by asking the Group to agree to meet at the Corte Madera Recreation Center on August 26. Stan Hoffman of the Corte Madera Town Center said that TAM was given a monumental task of relieving traffic congestion in the corridor but has come up short and that MDB, at no cost, has come up with better alternatives. He said that he believes the real solution is a highway to highway connection from I-580 to Hwy. 101 and that the rest is window dressing and doesn’t solve any of the problems. He disagreed that the traffic problem stems from the shopping centers; rather that traffic backs up to Mill Valley. He said that the community is not behind the build plan and that the right thing to do is to walk away from the insanity and spend some money on simple things along with building the connector. He said that the MDB or TAM plan will not solve the problem. He asked that the Group does what the community wants, focus on the connector and then let Caltrans build it. Barbara Becker said she liked the Marsh plan but wanted variation. Rather than close Industrial Way, she suggested leaving it open to SFD traffic both east/west but don’t have it connect to Hwy 101 since it will greatly reduce the traffic on the streets. Regarding the POC, she said it should be left intact and she would suggest changing the location of the bus stops to make them closer and across from each other since there are commuters who also use the POC.

Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, said he was not clear when the previous motion was made if it included removing the POC. MCBC maintains they would like to see a grade separated crossing and



Page 9 of 10

it will be problematic if the Group supports a project that approves the removal of the POC before improvements on Wornum are decided on. He said his organization supports maintaining the POC or its replacement but that, either way, a grade separation needs to exist for bicyclists and pedestrians. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, the Chair closed public comment.

d. Working Group Recommendation to TAM on Northbound Improvements (Action)

Member Rice clarified, for the benefit of Mr. Peri, that her motion was to forward on the northbound half- diamond within the context of the Group’s conversation next week on bike/ped issues and transit stops since she, too, is concerned about a safe, separated path. She said that the second half of her proposal was to forward the Brad Marsh proposal for further analysis. Member McInerney seconded Member Rice’s motion. Chair Fredericks suggested that the two-part motion be taken one at a time. Member Condon stated that in response to Karen Nygren’s comments, she felt similarly that after all the meetings that have occurred, that the underlying intent was to end up with a pre-determined result. She said that this is how she would feel about these proceedings should the Group decide to support the build plan since some terrific ideas were presented and the goal all along was to come up with something different from what TAM proposed. She said that she found it offensive and abusive and that she would hate for anyone to perceive that the Group “fell into this trap” to go through all this work and to come up with nothing. She said that if the Group cannot move further on the other proposals, the effective solution would be the Marsh plan, since she could not support the Build plan. Member Rice, in response, said that she recognized that there may not be consensus but that she took offense at Member Condon’s comments. She said that she began this process months ago with authentic intentions, as she believes the other members have. The group reviewed a lot of information and arrived at a recommendation, because of MDB, for the southbound option that was different from the original plan. She stated that there was analysis done on the public’s proposals that were examined, honestly, by TAM staff, consultants and Caltrans staff. If a proposal or elements of a proposal did not vet out in terms of feasibility or relieving the problem, then that was the analysis but it isn’t fair to make the comment that this was an inauthentic process. She believes that staff did their best and that everyone has looked for a solution that the community could support. Member Rice went on to say that she does not believe that the Group will arrive at a consensus on the northbound option but that would be okay since the Group’s vote count will speak to the TAM Board about the Group’s opinion of the recommendation. She said that she thought the process was authentic and that it was important for the project to stop so that this process could occur. She said that she is receiving calls and is speaking with Ross Valley residents who are not happy about being stuck in traffic and are looking for a solution to this problem which are occurring, in part, due to the circumstances in the Hwy 101 Greenbrae corridor. She finalized her comments by saying that most recognize that there is a place for the I-580/101 connector in the future but not in the near future.

Member Condon clarified her comments by stating that she would not want anyone to think that she was selling short the consultants who worked closely with MDB to find a solution. She meant that the northbound build project was something opposed by the community and jeopardized the POC, would remove many trees and did not seem justified for the mitigation. She asked from the beginning for



Page 10 of 10

Caltrans to meet with MDB and all were appreciative of their cooperation, but that the Group should not default to the build plan just because the other proposals were not workable. Member Rice said she appreciated Member Condon’s position that she would prefer a no build project as opposed to the TAM build option. Member Marsh said that he has spoken with Larkspur residents and they want to see some improvement and he believes that this was accomplished with the southbound option. However, he said he cannot support the TAM Build project northbound and that he would hate to see the Group take a vote and have the build project shot down and his project be put forward without having a full analysis on it. He suggested, that he’d rather have the Group be more thoughtful and look at hybrid solutions. He asked that no vote be taken tonight but, instead, continue this discussion after the Group has looked at the bike/ped options. Member Furst supported Member Marsh’ suggestion to delay the vote tonight since a lot of opposition to the TAM Build project has to do the bike/ped elements including the loss of the POC. She said she felt that northbound improvements and the bike ped improvements are linked so it would be better to defer a decision until next week. She reviewed her goals for participation in this process: 1) do no harm, 2) improve bike/ped, and 3) consider future conditions. If there is to be a 580/101 connector in the future, the Group should aim to avoid creating a project that is so massive or harmful to what the future conditions will be that it will prohibit flexibility to address changed conditions in the future. Member McInerney withdrew his second to Member Rice’s motion. Member Rice then made a motion to defer the vote on a northbound recommendation until the Group meets again on August 26 and that the recommendation be made in the context with the bike/ped project elements and Member McInerney seconded the motion which passed unanimously. In response to a question from Member Furst asked about available funding to analyze the Marsh plan in the coming week, ED Steinhauser said staff will do their best to return with some information. Member Furst asked staff to keep in mind that it appears there’s some interest in a scaled-back project and the potential for closing Industrial, so if the Marsh plan proves unworkable, perhaps variation of his plan could work.

5. Public Comment on Open Items Seeing no one wishing to speak, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.


MEETING OF TAM’S Greenbrae Corridor Advisory Working Group

Meeting #11

August 26, 2013 3:00 p.m.

CORTE MADERA COMMUNITY CENTER

498 Tamalpais Drive Corte Madera, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 18

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Alice Fredericks, Tiburon Town Council, TAM Chair Brad Marsh, City of Larkspur

Carla Condon, Town of Corte Madera Diane Furst, Town of Corte Madera Dan Hillmer, City of Larkspur Gary Phillips, City of San Rafael Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors Tom McInerney, Town of San Anselmo

Guests Present: Dan McElhinney, Chief Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 4 Staff Members Present: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Bill Whitney, Project Delivery Manager

Chair Fredericks called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. 1. Chair Welcome and Working Group Introductions Chair Fredericks welcomed the Group. Members of the Working Group introduced themselves around the room. 2. Approve Draft Minutes from Meeting of July 19, 2013 and August 19, 2013 (Action) Member Hillmer moved to approve the July 19, 2013 Minutes. Member Condon seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 3. Agenda Review (Discussion) Chair Fredericks summarized the agenda for this meeting, especially the new option presented by Member Marsh at the last Working Group meeting. Chair Fredericks also announced her intentions to move a portion of Agenda Item #7, Public Comment, to earlier in the agenda out of respect for the young people who have come today to address the Group.



Page 2 of 18

4. Follow-up Items from Previous Meetings (Action) Item #7 taken out of order. 7. Public Comment on Open Items A number of middle school students commented on difficulties in getting to/from shopping centers without a car and explained how scary is was without walking/bicycle paths separate from the roadways. They also spoke about dangers of crossing the busy streets, and about cars coming off the freeway and crossing the same area where the bikes and pedestrians are. Younger children in the audience held up signs in support of undercrossings on Wornum Drive. Seeing no further children wishing to speak, Chair Fredericks closed public comment until the end of the meeting. 5. Review and Recommendation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Action) a. Presentation on Potential Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Corridor b. Public Comment

c. Working Group Recommendation to TAM on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Corridor

Project Manager Bill Whitney introduced the item, indicating that David Parisi of Parisi Associates would be presenting the staff report. He also noted that Executive Director Dianne Steinhauser had been called away from the meeting, but will be joining the meeting later. Mr. Parisi reviewed current bike/ped facilities in the area, bus stops, the pedestrian overcrossing, and best practices for design of bike/ped improvements and how those standards have changed. He also discussed new/improved design features proposed by the public, comparing/contrasting alternatives for the overcrossing and potential impacts to traffic, north/south greenway concepts, details of the Wornum Drive underpass concept, a proposal to raise Redwood Highway at Wornum, factors for consideration of a shared path along Wornum, and a crossing under the proposed Wornum offramp. Mr. Whitney discussed his work on the Central Marin Ferry Connector Project (CMFC), phasing of that project related to the crossing of Corte Madera Creek, complexities of the phasing, costs involved, preliminary engineering completed in 2010, design of a new bridge, railroad right-of-way, required regulatory permits, environmental hurdles, and rising construction costs. At the request of Member Katie Rice, Mr. Whitney provided a breakdown of the costs for the crossing of the creek. Member Brad Marsh asked about the potential for using the existing railroad trestle as an alternative pedestrian overcrossing. Mr. Whitney said staff had looked at it further, but had determined it was not feasible; he was doubtful that any engineer would be comfortable approving that as a possibility. Member Marsh questioned whether the report was provided to the Group. Chair Fredericks said she remembered staff reporting back that it was not a feasible option. Member Marsh said he didn’t remember a follow-up report being made. Member Rice asked whether completion of the north-south connecting pathway could be done in a phased approach as recommended by the Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC), if that is what the



Page 3 of 18

Working Group recommends to the TAM Board. Mr. Whitney said yes, that was how it was proposed for phase II of the previous CMFC project report. Member Rice asked, and Mr. Whitney confirmed that if the creek crossing is deemed infeasible, phase II of the CMFC project would be a viable alternative for completing the pathway. Member Marsh referred back to an earlier meeting of the Working Group when they - unanimously, he thought - agreed that they wanted to see further analysis of the possibility that the trestle could be rehabilitated for use as an alternative pathway or even if the structure could accommodate added features. Mr. Whitney reiterated his earlier statement that he, as an engineer, could not recommend that the structure would be safe enough to use as a pedestrian bypass. He explained that there were too many unknowns, and further structural review would likely be necessary just to answer the safety conditions. Kai Chan of the project team indicated that he had been involved at the earliest level of the project, and the structure was analyzed and determined to be unstable and not practical for use. Member Rice asked if Member Marsh was asking about the trestle use because he thought it would be less costly than other options for the north-south greenway. Member Marsh said his original question was posed only because he thought the Group had wanted more information and it hadn’t been provided yet. He also thought it was a cost-effective solution even if further environmental review was needed, and he thought the Group should be able to say it had been fully investigated. He expressed disappointment that the additional information was not available. Mr. Whitney added that another challenge to that alternative is that SMART retains control of that crossing, possibly for future use by them. Member Marsh asked if anyone had been able to get input from SMART whether they would consider the idea. Member Gary Phillips noted that is difficult to get an answer from SMART, given the hypothetical nature of the proposal and details that are, as yet, unknown. He asked whether staff thinks the proposal is financially feasible within the constraints of the project. Mr. Whitney replied that it is up to the Group and eventually the TAM Board itself to determine the feasibility of a project, based on information provided by staff. Chair Fredericks said she thought the Group should make a priority recommendation to the Board, including the different components of the project, and let the Board analyze and determine its financial feasibility. Member Phillips said he would not want to make a recommendation of specific components without knowing the financial impacts – a recommendation that is financially infeasible would not be a good recommendation. Member Condon said she was excited that the Group had been presented with an alternate plan – one that represents consensus from a variety of groups, and involves no taking of property, does not encroach in public rights-of-way and affords safe and separate pathways. She asked Mr. Whitney whether he had considered the proposal. Mr. Whitney said TAM did meet with the three groups – MCBC, Bay Trails, and Marin Deserves Better who are recommending a series of projects known as the north-south greenway and he deferred to the Working Group for making the recommendation of elements they want to move forward to the TAM Board. Member Condon asked whether Mr. Whitney had found any components where the proposal does not fit the requirements of the project. Mr. Whitney said there were some serious challenges that need to



Page 4 of 18

be resolved with the proposal, but the Group would make the recommendation on prioritizing the components that it supports. Chair Fredericks asked whether Mr. Parisi thought that the plans for completing the north-south greenway would involve in taking of property. Mr. Parisi discussed some of the challenges, including the narrowness of the sidewalk along the highway, the heights of the walls, and the slope. He noted that his presentation dealt with the latest proposal and changes that he would recommend to improve it, some of which would require roadway acquisition. Member Hillmer asked whether the numbers cited by Mr. Parisi for wall heights and slope were relative to sea level. Mr. Parisi said no, for reasons of simplicity they were relative to the roadway or the sidewalk. In response to further questions from Member Hillmer, Mr. Parisi deferred to Sean Mayer of Jacobs Engineering, who discussed drainage issues and required mitigation since the pathway under the roadways would be below sea level at some points. Mr. Whitney discussed concerns raised by BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) related to sea level rise. Member Dianne Furst discussed the origin and purpose of the Working Group was due, mostly, to people being dissatisfied with the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. She noted that over 1,150 comments were received from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition regarding the need for safe and separate crossings over the freeway for pedestrians and bicyclists. She asked the members of the Working Group to keep that in mind as they proceed. She also reminded the Group of the legislative intent of the project related to the multi-use pathway, based on the use of Regional Measure 2 funds. Chair Fredericks reminded the Group of the agenda process, noting this was a time to ask for Group members to ask questions of staff, which will be followed by public comment on the item and then further discussion by the Group with hopefully a recommendation to the Board. Member Marsh asked whether the agenda could be changed to postpone Group discussion and recommendation on the bike/ped options until after public comment on both items and the presentation on the northbound options. Member Rice noted that one of the goals of this project is to improve east-west connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians. She expressed concern about the tunnel proposal and security for children passing through it, especially at night. Mr. Parisi agreed that separate and safe facilities are the goal, and he acknowledged potential safety issues with the underground proposals, which he reviewed. He also commented on environmental issues. Member Rice asked about at-grade crossings, and Mr. Parisi discussed the related issues/challenges. Member Rice asked what Mr. Parisi would recommend for the intersection at Wornum, based on his experience designing bike/ped paths. Mr. Parisi discussed the benefits and challenges of each option, including keeping the current overpass, at-grade crossings, separate facilities for each mode, and the tunnel option. Chair Fredericks asked about phasing of the project, which Mr. Parisi reviewed. Chair Fredericks confirmed with Mr. Parisi that it would be possible for the Group to establish priorities for the phasing. Member Furst said she believed it would be possible to keep the intersection at Redwood and Wornum the way it is now without the taking of the RV park. In terms of safety, she also noted that the Central



Page 5 of 18

Marin Police Authority has stated they would prefer underpasses instead of children or adults crossing freeway ramps. Member Phillips questioned what Mr. Whitney meant by “challenges”, particularly with the Marin Deserves Better bicycle plan; and Mr. Whitney explained that it does not necessarily mean a proposal is infeasible, but staff wants the Group to be aware of areas that need to be resolved. Member Phillips discussed options presented at the last meeting, and Caltrans stating that 2 of the 3 would not be acceptable to them. He questioned whether there are components of these proposals that Caltrans (or any other agency) would deem “unacceptable”, in which case the Group should not take time to consider them. Mr. Whitney acknowledged there were a number of jurisdictions involved, including Caltrans as well as local jurisdictions. He noted that the State has indicated it would not recommend the use of underpasses within the State highway, but has said it would not oppose them if the Group and the Board decides they want to move forward with them anyway, the project team would have to do its best to ensure maximum safety, etc. Member Marsh asked whether anyone has reviewed the technical aspects of the options proposed for the pedestrian overcrossing, and Mr. Whitney said the engineers on the project team have done a preliminary assessment and identified potential problems. In response to a further question from Member Marsh, Mr. Whitney reviewed some of those issues. Member Hillmer asked about rehabilitation of the existing overcrossing including elevators, to meet ADA standards. Mr. Whitney indicated that a cost-benefit analysis would be important in deciding whether the benefits would outweigh the risks. Member Furst commented on the asset that the existing overcrossing is to the community, and she expressed concern about losing that asset simply to accommodate the widening of the freeway. Chair Fredericks opened public comment on the item. Dave McPherson introduced two school-aged children who had successfully cycled to school for kindergarten and first grade to Neil Cummings School. He expressed support for tunnels to provide safe, separate facilities for them to continue to ride even if they are re-assigned to the Cove School on the other side of the freeway. He commented on his work with Safe Routes and the many parents who had told him they would not let their children ride on a regular basis because of the unsafe conditions in crossing Redwood Highway at Tamal Vista. He urged the Group to recommend that the TAM Board complete the north-south greenway and build the undercrossing. Cindy Winter, Marin Deserves Better, reiterated an earlier concern she had expressed regarding TAM staff disregarding her questions. She was appreciative of Mr. Parisi’s explanations of the process and potential solutions, but she thought there was still a long way to go. She was concerned about possible legal ramifications if the Highway Design Manual is not adhered to, or if the deviation from the standards is not justified. She asked that her twelve questions be included in the minutes of this meeting. They are:

1. Why was HDM 1003.1 not followed for the width calculations? 2. HDM Section 1003.1 says that Class I bikeways are facilities with cross flows by vehicles

minimized. Is a Class I built across entries/exits to a shopping center and a car wash the best choice? Was a Class II bikeway (bike lane) considered?

3. Was the minimize vehicle cross flow advisory considered here? 4. Was serious thought given to the effect of taking an 18-foot strip of property from these

businesses?



Page 6 of 18

5. How do you propose to mitigate the intersection hazards for these cyclists? 6. Did anyone who suggested this MUP “observe” how this area is used? 7. Did anyone “observe” (area of 101 Nellen) and apply HDM guiding principle no. 10 which calls

for designing pedestrian and bicycle paths to be as direct as possible? 8. Did anyone “observe”, at the Nellen/Lucky area, how and where bicyclists, pedestrians and

transit users are currently navigating the intersection? 9. How can a direct safe crossing be provided in that area? 10. Has TAM any suggestions for the unsignaled crosswalk at Wornum. 11. Given the stated potential for “crashes” how can TAM justify recommending crosswalks at the

base of the proposed ramps at Wornum? 12. Why has TAM recommended removal of the pedestrian overcrossing, contrary to Caltrans’

clearly expressed intent?

She expressed concern as well about the design of the proposed new overcrossing, as well as maintaining already-established pedestrian patterns. Steve Cardellini, Marin Deserves Better, discussed the many questions he had for TAM staff and the consultant following last week’s meeting. He indicated he had typed them up and emailed them to staff and the Working Group. He asked that the questions be included as part of the minutes for this meeting and the Chair agreed.

1. Why is it the MDB lanes can only be separated by hard barriers that require tearing down the a. POC, and TAMs lanes can be separated by striping?

2. If the TAM staff was trying to find ways that the MDB concepts could work, as they a. claimed, why wasn’t striping suggested to MDB as a way to solve their lane separation b. problem?

3. There are a lot of people who don’t believe striping will work to keep cars from changing lanes, and Caltrans doesn’t seem to believe it either. If they did, wouldn’t they have used it at the Industrial onramp? If there’s an easier, cheaper, safer way to separate lanes, why did Caltrans choose to use a system that would endanger their repair crews?

4. When the TAM consultants created their map of the MDB 2 plan, the Industrial onramp was incorrectly drawn as a merge into the 5th lane, rather than as a new lane. When that plan was critiqued at the Aug. 15th meeting, that merge was identified as another flaw in the MDB plan. If the TAM/Caltrans team was trying to help make the MDB 2 plan work, why wasn’t the MDB team told something like this: “We see you show this as a merge. We believe it would work better as an additional lane. That feature could easily be inserted into your plan since we have already engineered the lane addition, and your roadway is actually narrower than ours in that area” Statements like that would show that you were actually looking for ways the MDB plan could work, not just looking for ways to show it couldn’t work.

5. At the Aug. 19th meeting, during the description of the MDB 2 plan, a “dangerous weave” was pointed out just north of the Industrial onramp. Later in the meeting, when the TAM Build Plan was described, which has the very same lane configuration in exactly the same location, the “dangerous weave wasn’t mentioned. Why is that?

6. Later in the Aug. 19th meeting one of the TAM consultants talked about his impression of how a direct connect between 580 WB and 101 SB would function. He said if 100% of the westbound traffic went to San Rafael and connected with 101 SB , there would be a “right lane overload” at the SFD exit caused by all the traffic exiting 101 SB and going west on SFD. My question is why would 100% of the 580 WB traffic go to San Rafael? Specifically why would traffic headed to SFD go to San Rafael? Why wouldn’t they take the SFD exit? After all, that’s the traffic that belongs on SFD. They wouldn’t go to San Rafael, so they wouldn’t end up causing a right lane overload.



Page 7 of 18

7. At the Aug.19th meeting one of the consultants talked about the striping, and other unnamed devices, that will be used to keep cars in the SFD EB exit lane out of the SFD WB exit lane. Now that you’ve realized you will need to keep those two lanes separated, so the crawling eastbound traffic doesn’t block the westbound traffic, it must be apparent to you that in effect you only have one lane leaving 101 NB carrying traffic to SFD EB. Caltrans identified that condition in the MDB plan as unacceptable. Since the TAM Build Plan, with its dangerous weave, also has this same unacceptable condition, that would by extension make the TAM Build Plan an unacceptable plan, wouldn’t it?

Chair Fredericks asked Mr. Cardellini whether he had been able to meet with staff separately, and he acknowledged he had been invited to meet but it hadn’t happened yet. He also made a suggestion about placement of the lanes for the bike undercrossing on the east side of the freeway. He expressed support for keeping the existing pedestrian overcrossing, and two adjacent bus stops, reading sections from the Caltrans highway design manual and the intersection design manual. Patrick Seidler, Transportation Alternatives for Marin, thanked ED Steinhauser, Bill Whitney and consultant David Parisi for their work through this process. He agreed with Member Condon that today was a day for celebration because this is a day of decision when everyone can come together and reach consensus on design options for the project. He noted that the reason so many have come to agreement on the proposed alternative is because the original design would do nothing to resolve congestion and traffic issues, or to benefit the bike/ped community. He urged the Group to recommend that TAM begin the additional environmental analysis immediately so the project can move forward. Rocky Birdsey, Marin Center for Independent Living (MCIL), discussed initial meetings six years ago, at which time MCIL was one of the original stakeholders to consider and provide input on the project. He discussed some of the recommendations that were made for the project. He indicated that for the most part they were happy with the project as originally proposed, except for the grade separation that the pedestrians currently have to use to cross over the freeway. He was supportive of using underpasses, but did not favor using additional right-of-way for pathway. He also suggested keeping the pedestrian overcrossing, but retrofit it instead of rebuilding it, and consider the possibility of elevators. Kirby Bartlett, resident of the east side of Corte Madera, noted that his children have been going to school on the west side of the 101 freeway. He discussed bike-to-school days that he organized and challenges he faced in trying to convince parents to allow their children to ride to school across the freeway. James Sievert discussed difficulties in crossing 101 at Wornum and the importance of finishing the north-south pathway. Dwayne Price spoke about the suggested undercrossings and said that it is the vehicle traffic that should be routed to the undercrossings rather than the bicyclists and pedestrians Carter Zen, Mill Valley Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, commented on the importance of the bike/ped facilities in unifying his town, and he urged the Group to do whatever it takes to finish the north-south pathway for cyclists and pedestrians. He discussed liability issues if someone is injured because of inadequate facilities, and he told the Group that the 1C option and Redwood Highway are dangerous and need improvement. Jean Severinghaus, a resident of Greenbrae, discussed three routes for bike/ped users, one going from the Airporter transit center to the SMART station and the Larkspur ferry to the south, one across the



Page 8 of 18

pedestrian overcrossing to Doherty through Larkspur and San Anselmo and up to Point Reyes, and the existing creek path. She commented on the need for all three to be safe connections, and she noted that a recent survey showed that 100% of people in her community use the overcrossing. She read from a letter sent by a parent regarding their use of the overcrossing. She urged the Group to retain the overcrossing and make the necessary ADA improvements. Rick Coates, EcoRing, expressed support for completion of the north-south greenway. He noted that the engineering staff do not seem to want to listen or take instruction and have their own agenda. He hoped that the Group would be able to make its own decisions; he cautioned against stonewalling. John Reed, Fairfax Mayor and an alternate on this Working Group, commented on the concept of “safe and separate” facilities and the “unknowns” regarding the overcrossing and he noted there is a section of Wornum Drive that is elevated above the roadway under the freeway. He acknowledged challenges exist with any of the proposals being considered. Robin Furner of Corte Madera said she bikes to work and she expressed appreciation for anything the Group can do to improve connectivity, preferably an alternative to the 3-foot sidewalk. Cheryl Longinotti, shared comments from another member of the public (Elizabeth Thomas-Mattej) who had to leave early, but wanted to tell the Group of the constant near misses at East Blithedale even though there is a crossing guard there to help students be safe. She added that the near misses that keep people off their bikes – she urged the Group to ensure safe and secure grade separation for cyclists and pedestrians. She said that Wornum could be a gateway to a number of amenities in that area but it is up to this Group to make that a reality. Dave Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF, expressed support for the completion of the north-south greenway and discussed a proposal that will allow it to be built at a much lesser cost, with an initial engineering analysis of the existing trestle, and use of the SMART right-of-way. He also asked about a question he posed at a recent meeting regarding the connection between the SMART station and the Sir Francis Drake bus stops, and he asked that the Group put his question on the list of things they want answers to. Peter Chase expressed appreciation for the work that the Group has put into this process, especially their willingness to look at options outside the proposed build project. He discussed the competing interests in the project from TAM, the engineers, the various constituencies represented on the Board, and the public at large. He urged the Group to imagine what the headlines will read tomorrow if they are able to reach consensus and design a project that completes the north-south greenway, keeps the pedestrian overcrossing and encourages the public to get out of their cars. Bob Ravasio, Corte Madera Town Council, thanked the Working Group, TAM staff and Mr. Parisi for the efforts in this process. He commented on the importance of safety and cleanliness in the tunnels but expressed confidence it could be done. He also noted that the north-south greenway is supported by all segments of the population. Tom Jackovics, Marin Deserves Better, expressed support for the north-south greenway and for the pedestrian overcrossing and opposition in the TAM Build project. Michelle Walker, principal of the Cove School, said the most important thing for the students of the Larkspur Corte Madera School District was to have a safe way to get to/from school while walking or cycling. She commented on the number of students in the district and the percentage who prefer



Page 9 of 18

walking/cycling. She expressed appreciation to the Group for their efforts to resolve the issues in the best way possible for the community. Martha Jarocki, a resident of the Greenbrae Boardwalk, thanked the Group for their efforts on behalf of the pedestrian overcrossing, noting that just a year ago it didn’t seem possible that anything could be done to preserve it. She asked the Group to complete the north-south greenway north of the creek and at Lucky. Barbara Salzman, Marin Audubon Society, noted that her organization was not supportive of the north-south greenway and that MAS had not been contacted by Marin Deserves Better for inclusion in the planning process. She was concerned about impacts on the creek and its wildlife, and she thought there were better options that could provide safe routes for the schoolchildren while not impacting the environment. Scott Stokes commented on the importance of considering the total picture, not separate pieces. He thought the best alternative was the Plan Simple design he had submitted in terms of transit and multi-modal features, and he encouraged the Group to take another look at it. He suggested an international design competition for the north-south greenway plans and the Corte Madera creek options. He also discussed moving the pathway to the north side of Wornum. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, noted that MCBC has expressed its preferences in a letter - the pathway behind Trader Joe’s, the SMART path, and a separate crossing over Corte Madera Creek. He noted that each facet had merits on its own, and he encouraged the Group to not let challenges dissuade them from moving forward. Kim Baenisch, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, thanked the Group for staying the course and listening to the concerns of the community. She was supportive of the north-south greenway as the best possible, safe circulation solution, as well as preserving the pedestrian overcrossing. Heather Sievert, a resident of Corte Madera, spoke in support of the north-south greenway and asked the Group not to recommend any concept as long as it includes eight lanes with on and off ramps for the freeway. She also was appreciative of the Group for listening to the community. Maureen Gaffney of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project, thanked Member Condon for her support of the phasing favored by MCBC, Marin Deserves Better, and Transportation Alternatives for Marin. She noted that now is the time to provide for alternative modes of transportation. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item. Member Hillmer asked if the alternatives would be included in the environmental review of phase 2 of the Central Marin Ferry Connection. ED Steinhauser said yes. Member Furst asked about all the other ideas for bicycle/pedestrian ideas that were submitted by the public. Mr. Whitney indicated staff had met with Marin Deserves Better and MCBC to see what their priorities were and they are the north-south greenway, which staff focused on. As far as recommendations for improvements in the individual communities, he indicated they should be pursued with the separate jurisdictions. Member Furst noted that all the items included in the proposal from Marin Deserves Better were issues from the original build plan. Chair Fredericks noted those issues could be discussed when the recommendations are made to TAM.



Page 10 of 18

6. Review and Recommendation of Northbound Highway 101 Options (Action) a. Presentation of Review Summary of Newly Submitted Option from August 19th Meeting b. Working Group Recommendation to TAM on Northbound Improvements Bill Whitney introduced the item, followed by Kai Chan who presented the staff report. He discussed the proposal put forth by Brad Marsh, and changes recommended by staff. Member Marsh asked about the necessary distance between on and off-ramps, which staff discussed. Member Marsh commented on number of lanes involved in the braided merge and questioned whether it would be possible to retain the overcrossing and still improve the traffic on the freeway, which is what most people want. Member Hillmer noted that a traffic circle configuration has been mentioned by some, and he asked how it would look and whether it would be helpful. Member Hillmer asked Mr. Chan to consider and respond later to that idea. Regarding Member Marsh’s question, Mr. Chan said based on all the plans he has looked at and considered for this section of the highway, including plans submitted by others, he did not see how the overcrossing could remain without compromising highway standards or other aspects of the project.. Chair Fredericks asked, and Mr. Chan confirmed he believed the only way to address the congestion issues and ensure safety would be to remove the overcrossing and rebuild at another location. Member Marsh asked for some option for the Group to consider between the build option and nothing. ED Steinhauser noted that the auxiliary lane as a stand-alone has not been evaluated yet, but it could be done. Member Rice acknowledged his concern about finding a solution that will relieve congestion, improve safety on the freeway and maintain the pedestrian overcrossing. She asked if the Group could discuss the Marsh plan as revised. She asked specifically about impacts on the Wornum area and where would the transit stops be. Mr. Chan reviewed the proposed changes to Marsh’s original plan and why the changes were made, as well as the proposed transit stops. Member McInerney asked about having a pedestrian crossing at the freeway offramp, and Mr. Chan discussed mitigations and safety measures. Member Furst noted that this plan is almost identical to the TAM build proposal, except for the shifting of the pedestrian crossing. She commented on one of on/offramps in the diagram shown by staff, pointing out that the length will actually be much longer than what is represented. She also questioned the designation of the offramp to east Sir Francis Drake as a two-lane offramp, when it will narrow down to one lane by the time it reaches Sir Francis Drake – just like the current offramp. She noted that the existing problem right now is not getting the cars off the freeway but getting them through the intersection onto Sir Francis Drake. Mr. Chan indicated the offramp could be designed with both lanes all the way down the ramp. Member Furst also noted that Sir Francis Drake is two lanes at that point, and she was concerned about impacts from the merging traffic if both lanes become turn lanes feeding onto Sir Francis Drake. Mr. Chan deferred to Matt Haynes from the project team to discuss traffic volumes further.



Page 11 of 18

Mr. Haynes commented on anticipated traffic levels in the peak afternoon period, which studies show could be handled by a single lane offramp – whether it begins as two and merges into one or is one lane the whole time is immaterial. He also noted that under the build alternative or the Revised Marsh Plan, all traffic from this exit will be directed onto Sir Francis Drake. Member Furst expressed that the existing offramp isn’t working now so she didn’t understand how it will in the future, and she was frustrated that even after all this time and effort, a workable alternative has still not been presented. She commented on traffic coming off the freeway onto a city street, which then takes them to another freeway – she felt that Corte Madera is the wrong place for the highway transition to occur. Chair Fredericks noted that Member McInerney needed to leave the meeting but wanted to make a comment first. Member McInerney apologized for having to leave early for an important Ross Valley meeting. He expressed appreciation for being able to make a few comments before leaving. He commented on the balance between the need to relieve ever-increasing traffic congestion in the area and the desire to save the pedestrian overcrossing. He said he would recommend to TAM an auxiliary lane on the highway, the crossing at Wornum as shown in the Revised Marsh Plan, and further study and discussion of the possibilities of an undercrossing, if feasible. Member Hillmer noted that some of the worst congestion in the area was due to the bridge traffic on east Sir Francis Drake so if that were improved it would help more than the people who live/work nearby. He acknowledged that the best solution was to have a freeway-to-freeway transition, even though it might take 5-7 years to accomplish. In the meantime, he thought there were other things that could be done to minimize the impacts. He also expressed the hope that the various jurisdictions might be able to work together to find the best solution for everyone. Chair Fredericks reminded the Group that this was the time to ask questions from staff, and the time for comments/conclusions would happen later in the meeting. Member McInerney left the meeting at approximately 6:35 p.m. Chair Fredericks opened public comment on the item. Scott Stokes discussed how his proposal, Plan Simple, would take care of the one lane that exits onto Sir Francis Drake; in fact, he noted that his proposal has two lanes from the freeway that turn right unencumbered onto Sir Francis Drake. John Robbins of Corte Madera commented that the auxiliary lane doesn’t begin until the second onramp from Tamalpais Drive, but anyone who drives it regularly knows that the brake lights begin with the first onramp. He also noted that there was enough roadway at the merge point that another lane could be put there, which would reduce the backup. Steve Cardellini said if two exit lanes at Sir Francis Drake would reduce the congestion problem, it would be worth tearing down the pedestrian overcrossing; however, no matter how many lanes are put at the offramp, there is nowhere for the cars to go, so they would thus make the congestion worse. He also commented on difficulties with cars moving from faster lanes over to the slower lanes, which would then slow down all the cars behind them.



Page 12 of 18

David Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF, indicated agreement with Member Furst that the root of the congestion problems in the area go far beyond Hwy. 101. He thought that the solution would have to come in stages, beginning with the proposal by Member Phillips and Mr. Hillmer to add an additional eastbound lane on Sir Francis Drake. He discussed other measures that could help as well including signage to remind drivers to be more attentive to the traffic to resume speed, temporary closure of Industrial Way on-ramp to see what changes in the traffic pattern might occur, and lastly, the need for transportation demand management since he believes much of the traffic comes from the malls in Corte Madera. Thomas Jackovics said he thought the congestion problems originate with the Richmond Bridge, and its traffic patterns should be studied with the possibility of adding lanes in each direction. Cheryl Longinotti noted that the reason for the many different bicycle-pedestrian elements in the Marin Deserves Better Plan are because it endeavors to create a network so that people who currently do not have access to bike/ped paths will have in the future. She also explained that the pedestrian overcrossing serves more neighborhoods than the ones closest to it. She expressed confidence that Marin can easily meet the demand from school students bicycling to school if the network is completed. Jean Severinghaus expressed appreciation to the Group for understanding the needs of the community, especially the problems with Sir Francis Drake and the 580/101 interchange. Barbara Becker of Corte Madera noted that 70% of the people who use the pedestrian overcrossing are bus commuters; taking it down will work against the wishes of the Councils of Larkspur and Corte Madera who are trying to get residents out of their cars and using alternative transportation modes. She urged the Group to recommend keeping the overcrossing. Cindy Winter noted that she had gathered over 1,000 signatures for MCBC on a petition to preserve the overcrossing and she was disappointed that MCBC appeared to be more interested in the north-south greenway than in preserving the overcrossing. Peter Chase encouraged the Group to continue to seek solutions outside the TAM Build plan, and to forward those ideas to the TAM Board. He commented on other communities in the Bay area that had looked for new commute configurations and the benefits realized from the changes. He also encouraged them to consider an improved freeway-to-freeway connection between I-580 and Hwy. 101. Bob Ravasio, a member of the Corte Madera Council, noted that there has never been a conclusive study or evidence proving that there is an influx of traffic from the malls at rush hour. Andy Peri, MCBC, clarified that the petition to save the overcrossing was circulated in reaction to the Build project, but when the opportunity came to present other bike-ped facilities, that was when MCBC decided to promote the north-south greenway in addition to continuing to support the retention or replacement of the pedestrian overcrossing. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Fredericks closed public comment on the item. At 6:50 p.m. the meeting recessed for fifteen minutes and resumed at 7:05 p.m. Member Condon thanked Chair Fredericks from coming up with the idea to create the Working Group, to TAM staff for their patience in the process, to the consultants for their efforts and availability, and to the community, who have been so loyal in participating in the process. She proposed that the Group



Page 13 of 18

recommend to the TAM Board that 1) a northbound auxiliary lane be considered from the Tamalpais overpass to Wornum, 2) to consider adding a southbound lane to mitigate congestion, 3) to keep Nellen open and allow the right turn from Fifer onto Nellen southbound, 4) to recommend strongly against flyover structures or high concrete walls, 5) to retain the pedestrian overcrossing, 6) to create a separate, safe and conflict-free pedestrian-bicycle crossing at Tamal Vista and at Redwood Highway, preferably in undercrossings, and 7) a phased plan for completion of the north-south greenway between the Sandra Marker Trail and the Cal Park Tunnel. She indicated these measures would be a huge accomplishment for the Group and will maximize improvements that she believes are possible for this project. Member Rice asked for clarification on the proposed auxiliary lanes in the northbound direction and to what degree the consultant thought these would relieve congestion on Hwy 101, which Mr. Haynes discussed, indicating it would provide some benefit, but since it had not been studied as a stand-alone project, he believes that it would not provide that much benefit. Member Rice asked if it would be possible to make recommendations regarding the 580/101 interchange, particularly if there is some way to take advantage of the “breakdown” lane during peak traffic periods. She also asked about eastbound Sir Francis Drake. ED Steinhauser said there was nothing definitive that staff could discuss at this point. Member Marsh moved that the Working Group make recommendation to TAM, relative to the bike/ped element of the project, that 1) the north-south greenway be the preferred alignment with a new structure (for the bridge over the creek), that 2) the second preferred alignment would be the existing trestle if feasible, and 3) the third would be the freeway alignment; but in all events, the Group recommends improvements on the Sir Francis Drake offramp on the east side.. Member Phillips seconded the motion. Member Furst noted that MCBC and the bike/ped community had recommended splitting the north-south greenway project into three sections: 1) undercrossings, 2) clearing Redwood Highway to behind the Park and 3) the creek crossing. She asked if Member Marsh would be willing to amend his motion. Member Marsh indicated he was going to make a motion on prioritization of these projects under a separate motion. Member Furst agreed. The motion passed unanimously. Member Marsh moved that the Working Group recommends to the TAM Board that if safe, environmentally sound and economically feasible, undercrossings are preferred through Wornum to the Sandra Marker Trail; if not safe, environmentally sound and economically feasible, the Group recommends that the surface safety measures be instituted to the greatest extent possible as outlined by Mr. Parisi. Member Hillmer seconded the motion. Member Furst asked that some wording be added to the motion to indicate that a good faith effort should be made to make the undercrossings work. Member Marsh indicated his agreement to the addition. The motion passed unanimously. Member Marsh moved that the Working Group recommend to the TAM Board the preferred option for the pedestrian overcrossing would be to maintained the existing structure with ADA improvements, and that the second option would be a new overcrossing to be built in close proximity to the current one and as presented today.



Page 14 of 18

Member Rice asked for an amendment to the motion and indicated she would rather not specify the design of the new overcrossing, because it might be possible for a better alternative to present itself. Member Marsh revised his motion to say that the Working Group recommends that the existing pedestrian overcrossing be retained with ADA improvements if feasible; the second option would be to maintain the existing overcrossing as it is now; otherwise to pursue another overcrossing. Member Condon seconded the motion. Member Phillips cautioned the Group that his understanding was that any changes to the existing structure would require that ADA compliance, as well as correction of any structural problems. He asked Member Marsh if he would be in favor of keeping the existing POC as is if ADA improvements are not possible. Member Marsh revised his motion again to say that the Working Group recommends that the existing pedestrian overcrossing be maintained as it is now; otherwise, the Group recommends a new overcrossing built at the same location or in close proximity to the existing location. Member Condon proposed a revised motion, that the Working Group recommends preservation of the existing structure with ADA compliance, if financially feasible. Member Furst suggested that the Group make a recommendation regarding the northbound options first, because it might affect the recommendation for the overcrossing. Member Marsh moved that the Group recommend to the TAM Board that for northbound 101, 1) an auxiliary lane be added from Tamalpais, 2) that the Board consider studying the 580/101 interchange to see how the congestion problems might be alleviated, 3) that the County and/or Caltrans consider widening E. Sir Francis Drake to two lanes and 4) explore possible improvements to the merging options on I-580. Member Hillmer suggested that the NB101/EB580 interchange be the starting point for discussion. Member Phillips said he was not prepared to take action on the 580/101 interchange but would be open to having that discussion. He was concerned, however, that it would cloud the real issues being considered for the Greenbrae Corridor Improvement Project. Member Rice said she would not be able to support the motion if the only proposed improvement for northbound would be the auxiliary lane, because she did not believe it will make a significant change to traffic congestion. She noted that the purpose of the project is to improve connectivity for bike/ped, transit and ferry and also to improve freeway congestion and safety. Member Rice moved that the Group recommend the Brad Marsh revised option as the preferred northbound alternative. At the request of a Working Group member, Member Marsh restated his motion and Member Hillmer seconded the motion. Member Furst indicated she could not support the revised Marsh plan because she did not think that proposal nor the TAM build plan adequately addresses issues where Hwy 101 meets the east SFD offramp. She said that both would only push the congestion further down the highway. She commented on the bigger issue at stake, which is congestion in and through the region, and she



Page 15 of 18

expressed concern that the revised Marsh plan was insufficient to solve the problem. She finalized her comments by stating that she would be in support of Member Marsh’s motion. Member Rice revised her motion to add the recommendation that the Brad Marsh revised plan be further studied to determine feasibility and that the TAM Board work with the various jurisdictions along E. Sir Francis Drake to resolve existing congestion and traffic issues. Chair Fredericks asked Member Rice if she wanted to propose her motion as an add-on to Member Marsh’s motion. Member Marsh said he could not consider the add-on, because he did not believe that the revisions to his proposal would make it a viable option. Member Phillips asked for clarification on the plan being discussed currently. Member Marsh noted that the “Marsh Plan” was the one he proposed at the August 19 meeting; revisions were proposed by staff and although he was appreciative of their efforts, he preferred his original plan to the “Revised Marsh Plan”. Member Rice indicated that her motion was that the Revised Marsh Plan be further studied to determine if it was feasible. Member Marsh asked, and staff confirmed that the Revised Marsh Plan would be feasible with a little more review and modification. Member Phillips said it would be difficult for him to support Member Marsh’s motion because of the newly raised freeway connector element. He also expressed that he would not be in support of Member Rice’s motion. The motion of Member Marsh (that the Group recommend to the TAM Board that for northbound 101, an auxiliary lane be added from Tamalpais, that the Board consider studying the 580/101 interchange to see how the congestion problems might be alleviated, that the County and/or TAM consider widening E. Sir Francis Drake to two lanes in the County area and explore possible improvements to the merging options on 580) passed by a vote of 4:2 (Members Rice and Phillips voted no.) Member Rice’s motion died for lack of second. Member Marsh reiterated his earlier motion that the Working Group recommends that the existing pedestrian overcrossing be maintained as it is now; otherwise, the Group would like to have a new overcrossing built at the same location. Member Furst suggested adding language to the motion, stating that the Working Group recommends ADA improvements for the structure if possible. Member Marsh agreed to the change. Member Condon seconded the motion. Member Rice said she did not want the overcrossing to come down, although she would prefer a new overcrossing be built. She was concerned, however, that the Group not lock TAM into a commitment that says they will never remove the overcrossing especially if roadway improvements are necessary to improve congestion in the future. The Group voted 5:1 to approve Member Marsh’s motion regarding the overcrossing (Member Rice voted no.) Member Marsh said he would like to see a unanimous vote, and he asked Member Rice what it would take to make the motion agreeable to her.



Page 16 of 18

Member Rice said she actually preferred his first motion on the issue, that the Working Group recommend to the TAM Board the preferred option for the overcrossing would be to maintain the existing structure with ADA improvements, and that the second option would be a new overcrossing in the same location or in close proximity to the existing location. She also asked that there be language added which state that if the existing overcrossing cannot be maintained or if it needs to be removed to resolve traffic congestion issues, it can be removed. Member Condon said she was afraid that the added language would give the impression that the Group is recommending too much latitude to remove the overcrossing. She reiterated her earlier revised motion that the Working Group recommends preservation of the existing structure with ADA compliance, if feasible. Member Marsh asked how else the motion might be worded to say that the Group likes what is there, but if it ever comes down, it must be replaced by something similar or better in the same location. Member Condon expressed concern about that language may demand the taking of property. Member Rice said she appreciated the first motion Member Marsh made that prioritized what the Group thinks is most important, as well as his statement that the structure must be safe, environmentally sound and financially feasible. She wondered if something similar might be done here. Member Rice also commented on global concerns regarding financial feasibility and whether there are available resources. She suggested that the Group prioritize the components that are being recommended. Member Condon reiterated her concern about leaving the door open to lose the POC if ADA improvements prove unfeasible. Member Furst reminded the Group that it is an advisory body to the TAM Board and suggested that the motion should say, “The Working Group advises that the existing pedestrian overcrossing be retained.” Member Phillips agreed with that recommendation. Regarding Member Furst’s recommendation, Member Rice said that it is a statement made in such isolation that it puts her in a difficult situation. She went on to say that she would qualify her vote noting that she would like to see the overcrossing remain as long as the public understands that, in the future, there may be a proposal comes along to improve safety and congestion that has consensus and whereby the overcrossing must be removed. With her position clearly heard by everyone, she said she would support the motion. Chair Fredericks clarified with the Group that if it proves impossible to build an auxiliary lane and keep the pedestrian overcrossing, the motion on the table does not provide for an alternative that supports replacing the overcrossing. Member Furst stated that the she does not want to send the message that she supports removing this $20 million overcrossing only to replace it 20 feet in either direction at a cost of $25 million. Member Marsh asked Member Furst to restate the amended motion. She made a motion that the Working Group recommends to retain the pedestrian overcrossing. Member Hillmer restated his second. Chair Fredericks called the question and the motion carried unanimously.



Page 17 of 18

Member Marsh said this has been an interesting process, and he wished the Group had been able to find a better solution for the northbound somewhere between the revised Marsh option and only providing the auxiliary lane. Member Furst commented on the time that the public has also invested in this process, and she acknowledged that the process has at times been frustrating. Member Furst moved that the Working Group recommend that the TAM Board study the possible creation of a right-turn lane from eastbound Fifer to southbound Nellen. Member Condon seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Member Condon said she would like to note for the TAM Board that the Group did not recommend any flyover structures southbound or northbound and would not support massive retaining walls either. Member Hillmer said that her comment will be part of the record. He confirmed, also, the southbound recommendations to TAM, made earlier in the process. Member Rice moved that the Group recommend the prioritizing bike/ped improvements due to limited financial resources as follows: 1) the grade separated undercrossings, 2) the north-south greenway in a three-segmented approach from Redwood Highway to the creek crossing. She suggested launching them all at once while recognizing that they may not all pan out environmentally or economically. Member Furst discussed the bike/ped community’s preferences regarding the phasing of the north-south greenway improvements noting they wanted to proceed to environmentally clear all three options and implement as funds allow in phases as follows: 1) the undercrossings from Sandra Marker Trail to Redwood Highway along Wornum Drive, 2) multi-use path from Redwood Highway to the south side of the creek along levee behind RV Park and 3) the creek crossing Member Rice expressed willingness to amend her motion to include the environmental clearance of all the phasing first and the three elements of the phasing. Member Hillmer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Member Furst moved that the Group recommend, as a long term vision, to study other simple bike/ped improvements that Marin Deserves Better had recommended. Member Hillmer seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Member Furst also recommended the eventual connection of the multi-use pathway from the Larkspur SMART station to the Transit Center in San Rafael as indicated in the enabling legislation. Chair Fredericks said it was outside the scope of this Group, but she supposed recommendations could be made. Member Furst asked the Larkspur representatives if they would support the recommendation. ED Steinhauser said she thought advice from counsel was needed as to whether that would be eligible for RM2 funds. Member Hillmer agreed with ED Steinhauser. Member Hillmer said he would like to include for the record the letter from Barbara Salzman submitted to the Larkspur Council. He felt it was important as Ms. Salzman’s letter raising many environmental issues related to this project.



Page 18 of 18

Dan McElhinney, Caltrans, thanked the Working Group for their hard work and the recommendations regarding the project. He said he looks forward to continuing the process with TAM staff and the TAM Board to develop the best possible project for all types of transit. Chair Fredericks thanked the public for their involvement and their creative proposals. ED Steinhauser thanked the Working Group for their efforts. She also discussed the next steps in the process as per the Group’s Charter. She noted that staff will provide the Working Group with a draft staff report that staff will submit to the TAM Board and the Working Group’s ability to provide suggested edits. She also indicated that the executive director may make a differing recommendation, again, as indicated in the Group’s Charter. 7. Public Comment on Open Items Seeing no members wishing to speak, Chair Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.


Documents

March 23, 2006 - Granicus