CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO AGENDA TITLE: Receive a report on the Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study (WFC006) (CEQA Exempt) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2017 PREPARED BY: Tom Metcalf, Project Manager Michael Costa, Interim Transit Manager Kevin Bewsey, Senior Civil Engineer Rick Carter, Capital Program Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: Robert Murdoch, Public Works Director / City Engineer RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the City Council receive this report on the Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2015, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) was awarded a competitive grant from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program for a Multimodal Station Feasibility Study. The City was a sub recipient of these funds and will conduct the Study. Multi-modal facilities connect transportation services such as commuter and intercity rail, bus rapid transit, regional and local buses, and light rail at a single location. This facility could provide connections to commuter rail and other transit services in Elk Grove. The goals of the feasibility study are to: Identify and assess the feasibility of potential locations for a multimodal facility; 1

2 Elk Grove City Council August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Evaluate potential reductions to commuter traffic; Identify potential site locations and select a preferred location using a detailed evaluation process; Inform future planning and funding efforts for a multi-modal facility. Key partners in the development of this study are the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) and Caltrans. The SJJPA currently provides passenger rail service on Union Pacific s Fresno Subdivision railroad corridor (the rail line on the east side of the City). Due to the amount of heavy freight on the east line, the passenger rail service is limited. Therefore, the SJJPA is actively pursuing shifting the passenger rail service sometime in the future to the Sacramento Subdivision railroad corridor (the rail line on the west side of the City). At the recent July 28, 2017 SJJPA Board Meeting, the SJJPA formally approved a resolution selecting the Sacramento Subdivison (west line) as the option for environmental review to provide additional services to/from Sacramento. CURRENT STATUS: City Council awarded a contract on April 26, 2017 to Kimley Horn (Consultant) to perform the feasibility study. Since the contract s award, the Consultant has performed a background analysis and data collection of existing and planned infrastructure, land use patterns, and other facilities and transit services that would impact the multimodal facility s location. This analysis preliminarily identified thirteen potential sites for a multi-modal facility that were then narrowed down to the seven sites that were considered most viable. The Design Team then met with staff to narrow the sites down to the four locations (see Attachment 1) to be advanced further into the feasibility study: Site #1 - Adjacent to the railroad tracks, north of Bilby Road Site #2 - Near the southwest corner of the Elk Grove Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard intersection Site #3 - Near the future Civic Center site (Elk Grove Boulevard and Big Horn Boulevard) Site #4 - Near the City of Elk Grove Special Waste Collection Center (Grant Line Road and the railroad tracks) 2

3 Elk Grove City Council August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Sites #3 and #4 are owned by the City. Owners of the other two sites were contacted to inform them of the project and the potential impacts to their properties. There were no indications from the contacted property owners that they were opposed to the project. Following the outreach to the property owners, an Open House was held on August 2, Notification of the Open House was provided via the City s webpage, the project website, a press release, social media, mailings to stakeholders and homeowner associations and phone calls to homeowner associations in which contact information was readily available. Approximately 20 individuals attended the open house. Staff provided a presentation introducing the study, identifying the four potential multi-modal sites, providing an overview of the study schedule, and listing the next steps. An open forum was then provided allowing audience members to provide comments or ask questions. Following the open forum, the Design Team staffed work stations to allow attendees to ask questions one-onone. There was also a Comment Box in the room for those who preferred to provide written comments. A summary of the comments and questions received at the Open House is provided in Attachment 2. Following the Open House, an Electronic Survey was provided on the project webpage to solicit additional input from those who could not attend the Open House. This Electronic Survey will close on August 16, At the time of this report, the survey had yet to be concluded and as such, the complete results of the survey were not available. Attachment 3 contains the preliminary results of the Electronic Survey as of August As input is still being provided by the public, it is too early to summarize any trends that may develop from the survey. NEXT STEPS The input collected from the Open House and the Electronic Survey will be documented and considered in the development of the Draft Feasibility Study. In the next month, the Consultant will be completing the following technical tasks: Perform an analysis of existing and future traffic volumes, site access specifications, passenger rail service frequencies, and passenger ridership and demand in relation to the construction of a multimodal station. Transportation modeling will be done to identify how a 3

4 Elk Grove City Council August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 5 multimodal station will impact traffic volumes on State Route 99 and Interstate 5. Generate site layouts and cost estimates for all four sites. Produce a draft feasibility study, which will identify site feasibility based on several screening criteria applied to the site locations. If no location is deemed feasible, the Consultant will develop a list of considerations, site characteristics, and next steps for the potential future evaluation of a multimodal station site. Once the above technical analysis is completed, staff will present the preliminary findings of the Draft Feasibility Study to the public at a second Open House and will conduct a second electronic survey to collect additional public input. This input will then be documented and considered in the development of the Final Feasibility Study, which will be presented to the City Council in October. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following is the schedule for the remainder of the project: Early September 2017 Draft Feasibility Study completed September 14, 2017 second Open House from 6-7:30pm in the Council Chambers September 14 to 21, 2017 second On Line Survey October 25, 2017 Study concludes with Final Feasibility Study presented to City Council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Proceeding with a the Feasibility Study for possible future action is exempt from review under the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section FISCAL IMPACT The City of Elk Grove received funding for this study through SACOG s Sustainable Transportation Planning Strategic Partnerships Grant. The grant is part of the Federal Transportation Planning Grant. The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant amount is $125,000 which is budgeted as Federal Capital Grants (Fund 301). The required local match is $31,250 and is budgeted as Transit Services (Fund 511). These funds are budgeted 4

5 Elk Grove City Council August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 5 in the Fiscal Year Budget for Project WFC006 Multi-Modal Station. The total budget available for this effort is $156,250. There are no fiscal impacts related to this project update. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Potential Site Locations 2. Summary of Public Comments from the August 2 Open House 3. Preliminary Comments from the Electronic Survey 5

6 POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION ATTACHMENT 1 CONSUMNES RIVER COLLEGE Legend A JACINTO RD TER Potential Site Location Heavy Rail RT Light Rail Blue Line UP Fresno Subdivision PKY UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY CEN CITY OF SACRAMENTO RT Light Rail Station RT Light Rail Alignment Proposed in Elk Grove General Plan Update BRT Alignment Proposed in Elk Grove General Plan Update SHELDON RD D RN BLV BIG HO E-Tran Bus Routes: Local Limited Local Commuter CITY OF ELK GROVE BOND RD 3 BIG RN HO WHITELOCK PKWY OLD TOWN ELK GROVE BLV ELK GROVE REGIONAL PARK NE D RD 2 UP Sacramento Subdivision WATERMAN RD ELK GROVE CITY HALL ELK GROVE FLORIN RD ELK GROVE BLVD BRUCEVILLE RD LAGUNA BLVD FRANKLIN BLVD BILBY RD HOOD FRANKLIN RD 4 ON KT OC ST KAMMERER RD W V BL NOT TO SCALE GR 1 AN T LI USFWS STONE LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BRUCEVILLE RD 6 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY

7 CityofElkGrove ElkGroveMultiModalFacilityFeasibilityStudy CommunityOpenHouse#1Q&ASessionSummary Wednesday,August2,2017 Page1of3 VerbalComments fromtheq&asession Question:IamaSanJoaquinrailserviceriderandaSanJoaquinJointPowersAuthority (SSJPA)riderconsultantonavolunteerbasis.BasedonSSJPA sactionslastfriday afternoon,willtheprojectteamlookatonlysites#1,#2,and#4?therecentforecast showstwoexistingroundtripswilloperateonwhatiscurrentlycalledthefresno subdivision,andtwoadditionalfutureroundtrips(pendingfunding)willproceedthrough theenvironmentalprocessthisspringandultimatelyprovidetwotripstothesacramento subdivision.wouldn titmakesensetohavetwomultimodalfacilitieswithfuturebus serviceprovidedbyetranlinkingthetwofacilities?thisway,nomatterwhattrainyou takefromthesanjoaquinvalleytoelkgrove,youwillbeservedbyamultimodal facility? o Response:Forthosewhodonotknow,thereisanexistingpassengerrailservice thatrunsthroughtheeasternservicelineprovidedbythesanjoaquinjoint PowersAuthority(SJJPA).LastweektheSJJPAmadeadecisiontopursuefuture passengerrailserviceonthesacramentosubdivisionline,whichiaadjacentto potentialsites#1and#2.theultimategoalofthisstudyistoselectone preferredlocationforamultimodalfacility.wewillworkcloselywithssjpato choosethispreferredlocation. Question:Trainserviceorheavyrailandlightrailseemlikedifferenttopicstome.Why aretheybeingmixedintothesamediscussion?theyhavedifferentissuesandaffect neighborhoodsdifferently. o Response:Oneofthethingswearelookingatinthisfeasibilitystudyistiming. TheCityofElkGrovehasbeenapproachedbystakeholdersincludingtheSan JoaquinJointPowersAuthority(SJJPA)tolookataconnectiontotheirrailservice sinceexistingpassengerrailservicealreadypassesthroughtheelkgrove.there arenodefinitiveplansofwhenlightrailextensionwillcometothecityofelk Grovesincethereisnofundingrightnow,buttheprojectteamisstillconsidering thismodeoftransportationinthefeasibilitystudy.thisstudywillultimately considertimingfordevelopablesitesandlocations. Question:IamaseniorresidentinElkGrove,andinterestedintheoveralltimingofthis project.whatisthebestcasescenarioandworstcasescenariointermsofwhenwewill beabletousethismultimodalfacility? o Response:Theprojectteamdoesnothaveadefinitiveanswerfortiming.The SanJoaquinJointPowersAuthority(SJJPA)iscurrentlyevaluatingexpanding servicetosacramentoandestablishingaheavyrailpassengerstopinelkgrove. ThiswouldbeSJJPA sservice,whichmeanstheywouldberesponsiblefor constructingthisfacilityifthatisthedirectioncitycouncildecidestotake.if fundingforthisfacilityisidentifiedandsecuredwithinthenextfiveyears,best casescenario,itcouldproviderudimentaryconnectionswithinfivetotenyears. Butthatisonlyiffundingforthefacilityisidentifiedandproduced. Attachment 2 7

8 CityofElkGrove ElkGroveMultiModalFacilityFeasibilityStudy CommunityOpenHouse#1Q&ASessionSummary Wednesday,August2,2017 Page2of3 Question:IfIwereaCouncilmember,myquestionwouldbeaboutfinancingapotential multimodalfacility,whetheritisonesiteortwo.wouldfinancingforthisfacilitybe providedbypublicagenciesonlyorpublicprivatepartnerships?andhowwouldthecity ofelkgroveandstakeholdersbeinvolved? o Response:Thisfeasibilitystudywilllookatpotentialfinancingoptionsforthis project.fundingforaprojectofthisscale,whichconnectstootherservices,is typicallyobtainedfromajointfundingsourceoropportunity.thisiscommon withpublicworksprojects.acitywillprovidesomeofthefunding,inadditionto fundingfromstateand/orfederalagencies. CommentfromCouncilMemberSuen:TheCityofElkGrovehasagreatdealof infrastructureandotherneeds.ourcurrentbiggestsourceofrevenueissalestax.so therearealotofchallengesinregardstowhatwehaveforfundinginfuture.notjustfor thispotentialmultimodalfacility,butalsoforprojectssuchasthecameronroad extension.lastyearwetriedandfailedtopassmeasureb.thereareseveralgrant fundingsourceswehopewillmoveforward. Forpublicprivatepartnerships,therehastobeaprofitfortheprivateentitysowehave yettoseehowthatmodelwouldworkinthisscenarioforthemultimodalfacility.for instance,whatwouldbeprofitableforaprivateentity?wehaven textendedlightrail servicetothecityofelkgroveyet;itisstillaboutonetooneandahalfmilesoutsideof thecity.ifthereisanyhopetoenergizetheofficezoneareabycameronroadto encouragegrowthinofficeemploymentjobs,whichwouldkeeppeoplefromhavingto commute,wewillneedtohavethecameronroadextensionprojectfundedandbuilt. Therearealotofuncertaintiesandchallengeswearefacingforfundinginthefuture. Question:TheCityofElkGrovewouldnotfullyfundthiseffort,correct?Itwouldbe fundedbyamixtureofpartners? o ResponsebyCouncilMemberSuen:Yes.Inmyopinion,mobilitywillbethe greatestchallengeforourcity squalityoflifeandeconomicdevelopment. Investinginamultimodaltransportationsystemiswhatweneedtodo,butthere arealotofdifferentfactorsthatdeterminehowandwhenwedoit.grants, environmentalapprovals,landacquisition,andotherfactorswillneedtocome together. Question:DoesthisstudyincludestudyingalightrailextensiontoElkGrove?Everything IreadaboutlightrailinSacramentosaysitcostsmoretooperatethanitgeneratesin profits.peopledon trideitandpeopledon tfeelsafeonit.idon tknowhowmuch supportthereisforextendingitintoelkgrove.isthisstudylookingintoifitwillbe feasibletoextendlightrailtoelkgrove,orifitwillneedsupplementalrevenuetokeepit running?willthecity ssalestaxincreasetoincreaseridershiponlightrail? Comment:Thewaytheonlinequestionnairewasdesignedinawaythatmaynotgivethe projectteamallofthefeedbackyoumaynormallyreceive.forinstance,oneofthe questionsiswrittenas, WouldyoupreferSite1,2,3,or4? butdoesnotgiveanoption forifacommunitymemberdoesnotlikeanyofthesiteoptions. Attachment 2 8

9 CityofElkGrove ElkGroveMultiModalFacilityFeasibilityStudy CommunityOpenHouse#1Q&ASessionSummary Wednesday,August2,2017 Page3of3 Comment:Whileyouarecompletingthisfeasibilitystudy,theSacramentoMetropolitan AirQualityManagementDistrictwouldlikeyoutoconsiderothersafemultimodal connectionsandamenitiesatthepotentialsites.theseincludelongtermsecurebike parkingandelectricvehicle(ev)chargersifthereisaparkandride.also,pleaseconsider connectionstoamenitiessuchasthesportscomplex,outletmall,andfuturewilton RancheriaCasino.Thecasinomayhavetheirownbuses,butpeoplemaytravelfromfar awaytovisitit. Question:Howmanyparkingspaceswilltherebeatthefacility?Thatmightgivethe communityasenseoftheamountoftrafficthatcouldgothroughthefacilityandnearby. o Response:Theprojectteamestimatestherewillbe510acresofparkingrequired atthefacility.thenumberofparkingspotswilldependonwhatthefacility s longrangedemandwillbe,andwhatserviceswillbeavailableatthepotential site.wearestillcollectinginformationfromthestaterailmodeltodetermine theamountofparkingneeded. Question:IsthereaspecificfocusforthisfacilitytoprovidetransportationtotheSouth, tothenorth,orboth? o Response:Both.Themultimodalfacilitycouldprovideaconnectionforpeople totravelnorthfromelkgrovetosacramento,southfromelkgrovetothecentral Valley,ortotheBayArea.ThefacilitywouldalsoestablishElkGroveasa potentialdestinationlocation;itwouldconnectusthroughoutthestate. Question:Whattypesofmodelsorexistingprogramsareyouusingtodetermine ridershiporthenumberoftripsforthepotentialmultimodalfacility?isthereamodel thatexiststodaywecanlookat? o Response:Theprojectteamisutilizingseveralsourcestodeterminethepotential ridershipandnumberoftripsfortheproposedfacility.thesesourcesincludethe staterailmodelandsanjoaquinjointpowersauthority(sjjpa)ridership estimates.wewillbedevelopingestimatedridershipnumbersforthepotential multimodalfacilityaspartofthisfeasibilitystudy. Question:TheCityofElkGrovejustadopteditsrecentComprehensiveOperations Analysis.ThoseofusinvolvedknowservicechangeswilltakeeffectonMonday,October 29.Wouldthisfeasibilitystudyhavetochangearoute,orroutes,againtomakesure thereislinkagebetweentwopotentialfacilities oneatthefresnosubdivisionandone atthesacramentosubdivision andperhapsalinktothecosumnesrivercollege station? o Response:Forthepurposeofthisstudy,theprojectteamislookingatsite locationsforapotentialmultimodalfacility.intermsofadaptingourtransit system,currentorfuture,thatwillbeaprocess.ourtransitservicesarealways evolvingtoserveelkgrove.ifcitystaffareinstructedbythecitycouncilto constructamultimodalfacilityatasite,therewillmostlikelybeconnectionsto existingtransit. Attachment 2 9

10 10 ElkGroveMultimodalFacilityFeasibilityStudy Wednesday,August2CommentCards Attachment 2 MultiModalFacilityFeasibilityStudy 8/2/2017OpenHouseCommentCards FirstName LastName Phone Address Address Pleaseshareyourthoughts,comments,orquestions: Date Received Colin Martin colin@powerinn.org LackofbackgroundinfoaboutwhySJinsteadofanothermajortransithubtopartnerwith. CongestionorUMTreductionestimate? Presentationleansheavilyonbenefittoheavyrailpassengersandcreatingalongdistance hubineg.whatbenefitsforcommutersthatliveinegbutworkelsewhere? 8/2/2017 David Baker davidbaker@surewest.net Liz Irons mrslizirons@gmail.com IamagainstLightRailservingdownBishora,mostlythroughtheneighborhoods.Iamalso concernedaboutthecostsrelatedtobuildingandfundingthelightrail.therailcouldbe okayifitdoesnotrequireanincreaseintaxes. 8/2/2017 Whatpercentwillbeallocatedtosecurity,cameras,policepresence,securityof automobiles,keepcriminalelementoutofarea? 8/2/2017 Page1of1

11 ElkGroveMultimodalFacilityFeasibilityStudy Wednesday,August2 edComments Attachment 2 MultiModalFacilityFeasibilityStudy 8/2/2017OpenHouse Comments FirstName LastName Phone Comment DateReceived Response(ifcompleted) Steve Barnett steve.barnett@innogrove.com HiTom: Ihopethismessagefindsyouwell.IamCCingDarrellDoanandRachaelBrownonthismessageasIfeelmy commentsplayintosomeoftheactivitiestheyaretryingtodriveforelkgrove. IworkinthehightechindustrywithfrequentvisitstotheSFBayArea.IalsooperateacoworkingspaceinElk Grove. IjusttookthesurveyyoupresentedandIfeellikethereisanemphasisonLightRailaswellasother transportationmodesfortravelnorthandsouthofelkgrove.obviously,transportationintosacramentois valuablebutfromanemploymentview,thisstrengthenstheviewthatelkgroveisabedroomcommunityfor employmentelsewhere. Similarly,emphasizingtransportationtoBakersfieldonAmtrakisvaluable,especiallyforpersonalvisits. Ifthereisadesiretoreallypushtheenvelope(andthevalue)ofthisstation,bringACEtoElkGrove.Iknow thereissomediscussionofaceinthesurveybutitfeelslikethisisanafterthought.ithinkitshouldbenearthe topfor(1)thevalueitcanprovidetoelkgroveresidentslookingtogettothesanjoseareaand(2)asastrong marketingtoolforattractingbusinesstoelkgrove. IknowACEisincludedinthesediscussionssinceitismentioned.However,it feels likeanafterthoughtandi thinkitshouldhaveamuchhigherpriorityforelkgrove. Overallit sagreatprojectandwillgreatlyimproveourcity. Thanks. 7/26/2017 GoodafternoonSteve, Thankyouforyourinterestinthe City smultimodalfacilityfeasibility Study. TheCityiscollaboratingcloselywith variousstakeholders,includingace, toassessallopportunitiesfor passengerrailserviceconnections tosacramento,thecentralvalley, andthebayarea.yourcomments arenotedandwillbetakeninto considerationaspartofthisproject. Ifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions regardingthisproject,pleasefeel freetocontactus. Bestregards, Mike Steve Barnett steve.barnett@innogrove.com HiMikeThankyouforyourmessage.Itlookslikeagreatprojectforourcitythankyou(andeveryonewith thecity)forallyourhardworkonthis. Steve 7/28/

12 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. 12 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM

13 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 159 Registered Responses: 28 All Responses: 119 Hours of Public Comment: 6.0 This topic started on July 25, 2017, 1:51 PM. All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 2 of 63 13

14 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? Responses Where do you live? Quadrant % 9 Quadrant % 4 Quadrant % 5 Quadrant % 9 Other 3.6% 1 Where do you work or go to school? Elk Grove 10.7% 3 Downtown / Midtown Sacramento 39.3% 11 In Sacramento but not in Downtown / Midtown 21.4% 6 Stockton 3.6% 1 San Francisco Bay Area 3.6% 1 Other 10.7% 3 I do not go to work or school 10.7% 3 How do you typically go to work or school? Check all that apply. Personal vehicle 63.0% 17 Ride sharing service (Uber / Lyft) 3.7% 1 Carpool 3.7% 1 14 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 3 of 63

15 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? E-tran commuter bus 37.0% 10 E-tran local bus 7.4% 2 Light rail (Sacramento Regional Transit) 11.1% 3 Amtrak / ACE 7.4% 2 Paratransit service 3.7% 1 Bike 3.7% 1 Walk 7.4% 2 Other 7.4% 2 How often do you currently use public transit? Every day 25.0% 7 A few times a week 10.7% 3 A few times a month 28.6% 8 I do not use public transit. Skip to Question 7 below. 35.7% 10 For what purpose have you used public transit in the last year? Check all that apply. To go to work 68.4% 13 To run errands or for medical visits 21.1% 4 For entertainment, shopping, or recreation 36.8% 7 Other 5.3% 1 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 4 of 63 15

16 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? Which of the following local public transit services do you use at least once a month? Check all that apply E-Tran Commuter Bus 76.5% 13 A paratransit service provider (e- Van/Paratransit/Dial-a-Ride) Light rail (Sacramento Regional Transit) 5.9% % 8 AMTRAK / ACE 23.5% 4 Other 5.9% 1 If a passenger rail service existed in Elk Grove with connections to Sacramento, Stockton, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where would you take it to? Select all that apply. Work 42.9% 12 School 3.6% 1 Medical 3.6% 1 Shopping 35.7% 10 Social/Recreational/Entertainment 89.3% 25 Other 17.9% 5 If a passenger rail service in Elk Grove provided a connection to Sacramento, Stockton, and to the San Francisco Bay Area, how often would you use it? Several times a week 28.6% 8 Once or twice a week 7.1% 2 Once or twice a month 32.1% 9 16 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 5 of 63

17 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? A couple of times a year 28.6% 8 Never. I am not interested in riding a passenger rail service. 3.6% 1 How important are the following factors when deciding whether you would use a passenger rail service? Please rank them from most important to least important. Average Priorities How close the station and / or stops are to where I m going How close the station and / or stops are to where I live Travel time equal to or faster than auto or bus Dependable travel times Security at the station or riding the train Fares (how much it costs to ride) Frequent service Car parking at the station Service that operates during the middle of the day and through the evening Bike parking at the station If a passenger rail station existed in Elk Grove, how would you get there? Please select all that apply. Personal vehicle 82.1% 23 Ride sharing service (Uber / Lyft) 32.1% 9 Carpool 10.7% 3 E-tran local bus 17.9% 5 Light rail 17.9% 5 Paratransit service 3.6% 1 Bike 32.1% 9 Walk 42.9% 12 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 6 of 63 17

18 Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study Would you use a multi-modal facility? Other 10.7% 3 Share any other comments you have about the project. Answered 1 Skipped 27 public traffic transportation 18 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of August 8, 2017, 6:26 AM Page 7 of 63

19 19