CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.3 AGENDA TITLE: Receive a report on the Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study and provide direction as appropriate (WFC006) (CEQA Exempt) MEETING DATE: October 25, 2017 PREPARED BY: Tom Metcalf, Project Manager Kevin Bewsey, Senior Civil Engineer Mike Costa, Interim Transit Manager Rick Carter, Capital Program Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: Robert Murdoch, Public Works Director / City Engineer RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the City Council receive a report on the Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study and provide direction. 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 Multi-Modal Station Feasibility Study. The City was a sub recipient of these funds and is conducting 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

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 2 of 12 Evaluate potential reductions to single occupant vehicle commuter traffic; Identify potential site locations and select a recommended 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 traversing through Old Town Elk Grove). A key aspect of the study is the recognition of potential near-term funding opportunities for the construction of a multi-modal facility. It is estimated a multi-modal facility would cost approximately $15 to $25 million, depending on the location and site design characteristics for the transportation modal options being served. There is currently no funding programmed in the City s current budget, or secured, to address this entire financial need. As part of this study, staff evaluated the feasibility of a multi-modal facility being constructed to accommodate connections to heavy passenger rail opportunities and potential light rail/bus rapid transit opportunities. The SJJPA is actively applying for Cap and Trade grant funding, through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), to support additional passenger rail service to/from Sacramento, as well as the construction of new stations in various locations. This application will be submitted by January 2018. If the SJJPA is successful, all, or a portion of, a multi-modal facility s total construction costs may be covered for a facility located in Elk Grove. However, based on staff s current understanding of the SJJPA s grant application, a multi-modal facility would most likely be located on the Union Pacific Rail Road s (UPRR) Sacramento Subdivision railroad corridor (the rail line on the west side of the City), This is further explained in the Preliminary Study Results section of this staff report. For a multi-modal facility constructed with a connection to future light rail service, light rail facilities would first need to be extended into Elk Grove from Cosumnes River College (CRC). That extension is estimated to cost approximately $230 million. While the City continues to plan for such an extension, there does not appear to be adequate grant opportunities identified in the near-term that could fund the light rail extension into Elk Grove, which is a significant constraint for the feasibility of constructing a 2

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 3 of 12 multi-modal facility with light rail connections in the foreseeable future. In the interim, per the City s recently adopted five-year Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) service plan, a bus rapid transit (BRT) service implemented in the near-term could provide an opportunity for a multimodal station s construction without connections to heavy rail. However, it is still uncertain how this service would be funded, or what station facilities would be needed to accommodate both near-term BRT service, and longterm light rail service. While it may be less feasible to focus on a light rail/brt facility s construction now compared to a heavy rail facility s construction in the near-term, this does not preclude the City from considering the construction of a multi-modal light rail/brt facility in the future when funding becomes more certain. STUDY OVERVIEW: 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 multi-modal facility s location. This analysis preliminarily identified thirteen potential sites for a multi-modal facility that were then narrowed down to seven sites that were considered most viable. Main criteria for assessing site viability included: Within or Adjacent to the City Limits Adjacent to current or future passenger rail corridor (heavy or light rail) Space for 1,000-foot long platform along tracks (heavy rail) 5-10 acres for facilities including parking Connectivity to the existing transportation system Prefer vacant lots or lots with low real estate impacts Minimize risk of environmental issues (e.g. wetlands, soil contamination) Avoid excessive construction/site design costs The Consultant s team then met with staff to further narrow down the locations by limiting it to locations within the City of Elk Grove and those without excessive right of way costs. This resulted in the selection of four locations to be advanced further into the feasibility study. These locations are shown in Attachment 1, and Figure 1 as follows: 3

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 4 of 12 Figure 1 Four Locations Considered Site #1: Site #2: Site #3: Site #4: Adjacent to the UPRR Sacramento subdivision railroad corridor, north of Bilby Road along Willard Parkway (Sacramento Subdivision Rail Corridor) Adjacent to the UPRR Sacramento subdivision railroad corridor, near the southwest corner of the Elk Grove Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard intersection (Sacramento Subdivision Rail Corridor) Near the future Civic Center site, adjacent to Elk Grove Boulevard and Big Horn Boulevard (Future Bus Rapid Transit/Blue Line Light Rail Extension Corridor) Adjacent to the UPRR Fresno subdivision railroad corridor and Grant Line Road, immediately sharing the same property with the City of Elk Grove Special Waste Collection Center (Fresno Subdivision Rail Corridor) 4

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 5 of 12 The following matrix provides a high level comparison between sites: Site Heavy Rail Connection Light Rail Connection Bus Rapid Transit Connection Ability to Attract Ridership Near Term Grant Opportunities Cost to Construct Centrally Located Right-Of-Way Acquisition Required Challenges Site 1 Willard & Bilby Site 2 - EG Blvd & Franklin Site 3 - Civic Center Site 4 - Grant Line X Medium X High Less X X Medium X Highest More X X X High Lowest Most X Low Medium Less Located in proximity to established neighborhoods. Concerns have been expressed about impact to home values, increase in crime, increase in traffic on local roads, and increased noise due to trains. Located within the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental impacts. Longer lead time for right-of-way acquisition. Dependent on future $230 million light rail extension and future bus rapid transit services UPRR will likely not increase passenger service on the Fresno Line which is the rail line that serves this location. With only 2 or 3 trains a day, ridership will likely not be maximized at this location. To convey the four preliminary sites to the public and solicit feedback, an Open House was held on August 2, 2017, and an Electronic Survey was conducted from August 2, 2017 to August 16, 2017. This outreach effort and the feedback received are further detailed in the Public Outreach section, below. Staff also provided an update to City Council via a consent agenda item at the August 23, 2017 City Council meeting. Public input provided during this period was then considered for the development of the next phase of the study, which involved 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 multi-modal station. Transportation modeling was done to identify how a multimodal station will impact traffic volumes on SR 99 and Interstate 5. Generate site layouts for all four sites. 5

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 6 of 12 Produce a draft feasibility study, which will identify site feasibility based on several screening criteria applied to the site locations. This screening criteria included: Rail service feasibility, site adequacy for multimodal use, grant potential, accessibility to City roadway network, ridership estimation, site acquisition feasibility, cost, congestion relief, changes to bus network, nearby bus and bike facilities, and opportunity for supporting uses. Preliminary results from this analysis identified Site 1 as the recommended multimodal site, with Site 2 as the second recommended site. Staff then presented these preliminary results of the Draft Feasibility Study to the public at a second Open House on September 14, 2017, and conducted a second electronic survey from September 14, 2017 to September 21, 2017. This outreach effort and the feedback received are further detailed in the Public Outreach section below. PUBLIC OUTREACH: As part of the Feasibility Study, staff conducted two open houses and two electronic surveys. Notification of the open houses was provided via the City s webpage, the project website, a press release, social media, announcements at City Council meetings, mailings to stakeholders and homeowner associations, and phone calls to homeowner associations with currently available contact information. Stakeholders for this study are shown in Attachment 2 Approximately 20 individuals attended the first open house, and approximately 30 attended the second open house. Staff provided presentations about the study, identified the potential and recommended multi-modal sites, provided an overview of the study schedule, and listed the next steps. An open forum was then provided allowing audience members to provide comments or ask questions. Following the open forum, staff administered work stations to allow attendees to ask questions one-on-one. 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 Houses and from the electronic surveys is provided in Attachment 3. Also included in Attachment 3 are all comments received via emails during the course of this study. 6

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 7 of 12 A summary of the most common comments provided are as follows: 1. In general, most of the public are in favor of having a Multi-Modal Facility in the City. 2. Public input on specific site locations are as follow: a. Site 1 Bilby/Willard i. Not a centralized location. Located too far south. ii. While not centralized, viewed by some as the most viable location for commuting to Sacramento Area, Stockton, with possibilities for future Bay Area connections. iii. Located too close to existing established neighborhoods. Concerned with: 1. Negative impacts to home values 2. Potential to draw additional crime to the area 3. Increase in vehicular traffic traveling to/from the multimodal facility 4. Increase in train noise b. Site 2 Franklin/Elk Grove Boulevard i. Minimal public support for this site due to concern with impacts to the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge c. Site 3 Civic Center/Future Light Rail i. More desirable due to centralized location. ii. More desirable due to connectivity with future anticipated bus rapid transit and/or light rail services d. Site 4 Grant Line i. More desirable by some as it is a bit more centralized than Sites 1 and 2 and is not located near established neighborhoods. ii. More accessible to communities south on State Route 99. 3. The following are some key public inputs from the Electronic Survey: a. When asked where they would take a hypothetical passenger rail service to Sacramento, Stockton, or the Bay Area, the top three responses were social / recreation / entertainment destinations, workplaces, and retail destinations. b. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said they would use a hypothetical passenger rail service to Sacramento, Stockton, and the Bay Area at least once or twice a week. Sixteen percent said they would not use it. 7

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 8 of 12 c. The following are how respondents ranked key factors in whether they would use a multi-modal facility or not. These are ranked in order of the most votes to least votes: i. How close the station and/or stops are to where I'm going ii. Travel time equal to or faster than auto or bus iii. Security at the station or riding the train iv. Dependable travel times v. Fares (how much it costs to ride) vi. How close the station and / or stops are to where I live vii. Frequent service viii. Service that operates during the middle of the day and through the evening ix. Car parking at the station x. Bike parking at the station PRELIMINARY STUDY RESULTS For this section of the staff report, it was assumed the feasibility study is to consider both heavy rail and light rail locations for a multi-modal facility and will result in several preferred locations based on the type and location of the rail connection, rather than a single preferred site. If Council provides direction to only focus on one type of rail connection (either heavy rail or light rail), these results will be revised accordingly for the final Feasibility Study. Per the above referenced technical analysis and public outreach, the following are the preliminary study results: 1. The study investigated multi-modal facility sites on both existing heavy rail corridors and the future light rail corridor (i.e. Blue Line southern extension from CRC). Rather than have this study select the more desirable rail connection (heavy rail or light rail) as originally proposed, the study would assume there will be a multi-modal facility on each type of rail service so neither rail connection is precluded in the future. This is different than what was presented at the second open house and is the reason that staff is conducting further public outreach through this meeting and seeking Council direction prior to finalizing the report. 8

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 9 of 12 2. With Result #1 above, and based on the feasibility study, staff has identified Site #3 as a viable location for the light rail multi-modal facility as it is centrally located and also connects to the City s bus express transit service (effective October 2017), which utilizes a majority of the same corridor that light rail would utilize if extended into the City. Based on staff s preliminary estimates, in discussion with RT, extending the current light rail 3.7 miles south from CRC to Site #3 would cost approximately $230 million (the recent Blue Line light rail extension from Meadowview to CRC was approximately $270 million for 4.3 miles). The light rail extension is not funded at this time. Due to the amount of funding needed, it is unknown when the extension into Elk Grove will occur. However, the City is still planning for the future light rail extension and continues to preserve right-of-way accordingly. Furthermore, Site #3 could be constructed with a facility to accommodate potential connections to bus rapid transit (BRT) service, which is identified in the City s adopted COA five-year service plan. This BRT service would result from the planned expansion of the bus express service in 2022. 3. Regarding the recommended rail corridor for the heavy rail multimodal facility, the SJJPA s planning activities strongly influence this item as the SJJPA is responsible for the passenger service on the heavy rail lines in Elk Grove. There are two heavy rail lines in Elk Grove. The rail line on the east side of the city is owned by UPRR and is called the Fresno Subdivision Line (Fresno Line). The rail line on the west side of the city is also owned by UPRR and leased to BNSF and is called the Sacramento Subdivision Line (Sacramento Line). Due to the amount of heavy freight on the Fresno Line, the passenger rail service is limited. Therefore, the SJJPA is actively pursuing shifting the passenger rail service sometime in the future to the Union Pacific s 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 adopted a resolution selecting the Sacramento Line as the option for environmental review to provide additional services to/from Sacramento. Figure 2, below, is an exhibit from the above referenced SJJPA s July 28 th Board Meeting highlighting the two rail corridors. 9

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 10 of 12 Figure 2 Exhibit from SJJPA s 7/28/2017 Board Meeting 10

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 11 of 12 As stated in the Background section above, the SJJPA is actively positioning for a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant to support additional passenger rail service to/from Sacramento. The grant application will be submitted in the coming months. If the SJJPA is successful, there is a potential the SJJPA could fund a portion or all of a multi-modal facility constructed within the City of Elk Grove but that multi-modal facility would have to be located on the heavy rail line for which the SJJPA submits the grant application. At this time, it is staff s understanding the SJJPA will be submitting the grant application for the Union Pacific s Sacramento Subdivision railroad corridor (the rail line on the west side of the City). Given the low potential for the UPRR to allow the SJJPA to add passenger trains to the Fresno Line, and given the SJJPA s active planning and above referenced grant efforts to shift future and expanded passenger service to the Sacramento Line, it is likely the Sacramento Line will be the recommended heavy rail corridor for a the heavy rail multi-modal facility. However, as the SJJPA is actively negotiating with UPRR on being able to shift services over to the Sacramento Line, the feasibility study would recommend allowing the SJJPA and the UPRR to conclude their rail negotiations before the City selects one preferred rail corridor over the other. 4. With Result #3 above, and based on the feasibility study, staff has identified Site #4 as a viable location for a potential heavy rail multimodal facility on the Fresno Line. 5. With Result #3 above, and based on the feasibility study staff has identified Site #1 and Site #2 as potentially viable locations for a heavy rail multi-modal facility on the Sacramento Line. Per the analysis performed, Site #1 would be more desirable than Site #2 since Site #2 impacts the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and results in additional environmental, financial and schedule challenges. However, if there are concerns with both Sites #1 and #2, additional sites along the limits of the City could be explored along the Sacramento Line. 6. The range of costs for a multi-modal facility is estimated between $15 million to $25 million. 11

Elk Grove City Council October 25, 2017 Page 12 of 12 NEXT STEPS: Staff will receive input from Council and proceed with finalizing the Feasibility Study. The Final Feasibility Study is anticipated to be presented to City Council for approval at the December 13, 2017 City Council meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Proceeding with the Feasibility Study for possible future action is exempt from review under the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15262. The Feasibility Study is a planning tool for possible future action, and it does not have a legally binding effect on later activities. Any project causing a physical change in the environment would be subject to further environmental review under CEQA before proceeding. 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 in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 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. Map of Four Sites Studied 2. Stakeholder List 3. Summary of Public Comments 4. Public Outreach Summary 12

13 ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2 City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Stakeholder List Stakeholder List 50 Corridor TMA Ace Hardware Amtrak Apple Inc. California Correctional Healthcare Services (CCHS) California Northstate University College of Pharmacy City of Galt - SCT/Link Cosumnes River College DeVry University Elk Grove Campus Economic Development Department (Outlet Mall) Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce Elk Grove Cycling Club Elk Grove Resident, Lynn Wheat Elk Grove Unified School District Elks Lodge Clubs Filipino American Veterans Association Greyhound International Association of Lions Club Kaiser Permanente Laguna Sunrise Rotary Club National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference Power Inn Alliance Ride Downtown 916 Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sacramento Punjabi Cultural Society Sacramento Regional Transit Sacramento Regional Transit Sacramento TMA San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Senior Center of Elk Grove Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) South County Transit SCT Link Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Volt/Six Sigma Black Belt Walmart 14

ATTACHMENT 3 City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 Community Open House #1 There was a lack of background information about why SJ instead of another major transit hub to partner with. Congestion or VMT reduction estimate? The presentation leans heavily on the benefit to heavy rail passengers and creating a long-distance hub in Elk Grove. What are the benefits for commuters that live in Elk Grove but work elsewhere? I am against Light Rail serving down Bishora, mostly through the neighborhoods. I am also concerned about the costs related to building and funding the light rail. The rail could be okay if it does not require an increase in taxes. What percent of funds for the multi-modal facility will be allocated to security, cameras, police presence, and security of automobiles to keep the criminal element out of area? Emailed Comments after Community Open House #1 I work in the high-tech industry with frequent visits to the San Francisco Bay Area. I also operate a co-working space in Elk Grove. I just took the survey you presented and I feel like there is an emphasis on Light Rail as well as other transportation modes for travel North and South of Elk Grove. Obviously, transportation into Sacramento is valuable but from an employment view, this strengthens the view that Elk Grove is a bedroom community for employment elsewhere. Similarly, emphasizing transportation to Bakersfield on Amtrak is valuable, especially for personal visits. If there is a desire to really push the envelope (and the value) of this station, bring ACE to Elk Grove. I know there is some discussion of ACE in the survey but it feels like this is an afterthought. I think it should be near the top for (1) the value it can provide to Elk Grove residents looking to get to the San Jose area and (2) as a strong marketing tool for attracting business to Elk Grove. I know ACE is included in these discussions since it is mentioned. However, it feels like an after-thought and I think it should have a much higher priority for Elk Grove. Overall it s a great project and will greatly improve our City. o Project team response: Thank you for your interest in the City s Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study. The City is collaborating closely with various stakeholders, including ACE, to assess all opportunities for passenger rail service connections to Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the Bay Area. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration as part of this project. I m providing you with a recap of my comments from yesterday s Community Open House in Elk Grove for the Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study: provide safe multi-modal connections, such as signage, pedestrian crosswalks, bike paths, etc.; provide long-term, secure bicycle parking; coordinate connections with the Elk Grove Sports Complex, Outlet Mall and Wilton Casino; if there are park-n-ride spaces, then consider installing electric vehicle (EV) chargers. It was mentioned during the meeting that there would be space provided for connections to ridehailing services, such as Uber and Lyft. To expand upon that concept and to promote SACOG s plug-in EV readiness and infrastructure plan, consider installing: DC fast chargers to support EV ride-hailing/ride-sharing/car-sharing services and Level 1 or 2 chargers to support commuters with EVs. Thank you for keeping air quality and health in mind as you continue the feasibility study. We look forward to attending the next Community Open House on September 14th, 2017. 15

Responses Online Questionnaire #1 City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 I'm in favor for it. It's about time that Elk Grove and Sacramento has a good public transportation like other cities. Elk Grove is a community not a big city. Don't bring the light rail into Elk Grove it will only cause caos and crime. I do not think this is a good idea for Elk Grove. Especially not Elk Grove Blvd and Franklin. Crime will increase. I would consider moving. Fixed income, don't want the extra tax burden, Train would be a conduit for increased crime. Great idea for the future of Elk Grove! Traffic will continue to be a problem. This is true of any developing city. Hope it gets approved! Opposed to extending light rail. I would like to be able to take rapid transit from the Laguna West area directly north to downtown or midtown Sacramento for entertainment purposes. Therefore, the possible site of Elk Grove Blvd. (or Laguna Bl.) and Franklin Blvd. would be ideal for this area. I would strongly oppose having the station near the intersection of elk grove and franklin. Service to Sacramento is completely unnecessary. But like the idea of train service in town! This is sorely needed to relieve congestion in our region's freeways. We need two things in my opinion: 1. A good connection to BART for commuters who go to the SF Bay Area to work 2. Bring ACE rail to Elk Grove Please do not bring crimes into Elk Grove. Additionally, please implement a system where all riders are required to pay before boarding. Paid riders are paying absorbent amounts, which is ever increasing, to subsidize for those who don't. Please also consider routes later into the night for those who work until 6pm. I cannot tell you how happy I am that public transportation improvements could be in the works for Elk Grove. As a daily commuter, it pains me to waste gas and time every day in traffic to downtown -- the capital of the most environmentally sound state in the country. I would much rather take public transportation that will improve over all traffic and reduce harmful emissions. Have lived in areas where public transportation is easy accessible and it seems to attract crime. Not sure who would benefit from having additional transportation if majority of people living in Elk Grove have their own reliable transportation and use their own vehicles when traveling to areas around Sacramento. As a citizen of Elk Grove, I'm concerned that public transportation bring more crime to the city. I am opposed to expanding light rail in Elk Grove. Wish you the best of luck. Community Open House #2 I like Site 1 for commuting to Sacramento and Stockton. I am strictly opposed to Site 3 and bringing light rail into Elk Grove. It would take too long to take light rail into Sacramento, and I am not interested in light rail going to the casino because I believe it would bring drunk passengers to the light rail. I think Site 1 would make it easy to get to Sacramento for events at Golden 1 Center or otherwise and to Stockton for connection to the Bay Area. I think there 16

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 should be more than 250 parking spaces at Site 1, but I also expect that with driverless cars and fractional ownership we might not need all that many more. It would be nice to have the name of the panel members (city people presenting) and their designations on the pamphlet that is given to the public. My number one preferred location is Site 3 on Elk Grove Boulevard. Why? 1. It is in the middle of the city 2. It will provide good interaction among people of Elk Grove that live on the east side of SR-99 and those who live near I-5. It is very important to consider parking spaces. We need more than 250 parking spaces. I live in the Laguna area and currently take the E-Tran to downtown Sacramento. The buses are very crowded and sometimes there is no room to sit. Thus, to help ease pressure on the buses and reduce the heavy congestion on the I-5 and SR-99 I recommend having the multi-modal facility located on Site 3. Sites 1, 2, and 4 are far away from Laguna, and many in Laguna would not go to Sites 1, 2, and 4 due to distance and time. Plus, light rail can expand to Site 3, thereby providing a great alternative to buses. I support Site 3 as the location. 1. Scrap train options. Place emphasis on BRT and light rail using Sites 3 or 4. 2. Provide ridership numbers on railroad, not numbers possible from railroad consultants-special interests. 3. Have a Regional Transit representative at the next multi-modal meeting-someone who is knowledgeable with potential BRT and light rail current ridership and future plans Site #1 Private owned, Too small, Major residential impact, Limited future development, Dead end, Site #2 Major crossroads, Future light rail planned, Large space for expansion, No residential impact, Site #3 Major crossroads, Planned light rail, Near city center, No residential impact, Extensions to Kammerer Road, Extension to Indian casino, Site #4 Major crossroads, Freeway close by, No residential impact, Indian casino close by, Future development planned, Extension to Galt Emailed Comments after Community Open House #2 While I understand the purpose of the feasibility study, I do not understand what the need was that required a feasibility study to be done. For example, was it needed because of the high volume of riders between Sacramento and Bakersfield? (I don't think that this premise is true). Was it to reduce commuter traffic on I-5 and Highway 99? This may be a need but was it what led to the feasibility study? If the need was to reduce commuter traffic to/from Elk Grove and Sacramento, then the plan to have a rail station will not relieve any traffic congestion on Hwy 99 and may only have a minimal impact on I-5. Most people living in Elk Grove and working in Sacramento are not going to travel to the southern corners of Elk Grove to travel Northbound into Sacramento. The best way to reduce commuter traffic would be to add buses or bus routes and/or expand light rail in central Elk Grove or expand bus service to light rail stations that service downtown Sacramento. I was sorry to miss the meeting last week, and especially concerned when I heard what sites had been discussed as two of them are very close to my home. Nextdoor is quite active with threads on this issue and I have a few questions about the following locations that were posted on Nextdoor. 17

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 1. The open field west of Willard Parkway / Blossom Ridge Drive I understand this is the first choice. Is the city planning on taking this land by eminent domain from the current owner? This is very close to residential neighborhoods and a park that is used frequently by families in the area. If this were multi modal, what steps would be taken to handle the homeless from coming in to the neighborhood? Sacramento has seen a substantial increase of the homeless population and I was wondering if this is something that was discussed. I never see Amtrak San Joaquin on this track; are there plans to have it re-routed to this track. There are currently two San Joaquin trains that leave Sacramento to go south every day and two that come north every day. I have never seen these trains on the west bound Elk Grove tracks. The train stops in Stockton, Lodi, and then Sacramento. What track is Amtrak currently using? There are 5 other trains a day originating in Oakland and 5 other trains a day originating in Bakersfield, with only thruway bus service to Sacramento, would Amtrak increase train service to Sacramento or would they continue the bus service? This is a small location, where would parking be and what steps would be taken so people wouldn't be parking in the neighborhoods. 2. Open field southwest of Franklin Boulevard / Elk Grove Boulevard Isn't this a federal wildlife preserve? There is a sign on the corner of Elk Grove Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard stating this. 3. Southeast of Elk Grove Boulevard / Big Horn Boulevard How would Amtrak reach this location? What plans are there for light rail to this location? 4. Southeast of Grant Line Road / Survey Road Maybe I missed something, but why is this the last choice for location, since it's a central location for both east and west Elk Grove, for residents in Galt and for the mall and casino that is supposedly being built. This is an area close to commercial growth and would also help to spur new commercial growth as well. 5. The site of the original Elk Grove train station is not on this list, I was wondering why since the majority of Capital Corridor stations reside at original train stations. I am also curious what if any requirements the city needs to make to inform citizens of projects that affect their neighborhoods. Is the city required to send notification of upcoming works projects, similar to SMUD sending out notification of their plan to increase their substation? It seems like citizens have to search out the information and often times we are set scrambling at the last minute, rather than being prepared from the onset of a project. o Project team response: This [The open field west of Willard Pkwy/Blossom Ridge Dr] is identified as Site #1. The City has contacted the property owners and to this point, they have indicated they would be willing sellers for this project. If City Council selects this as the preferred site, this is something that could be further investigated with the next phase of the project and that next phase would include a public outreach component in which these concerns could be further voiced and alternative solutions discussed. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is responsible for the passenger service on the heavy rail lines in Elk Grove. There are two heavy rails lines in Elk Grove. The rail line on the east side of the city is owned by UPRR and is called the Fresno Subdivision Line (Fresno Line). The rail line on the west side of the city is owned by UPRR and is called the Sacramento Subdivision Line (Sacramento Line). The SJJPA currently operates only two (2) daily round-trips on the Fresno Line on the east side of the City. This service is provided by Amtrak. UPRR has indicated that the Fresno Line is congested with freight 18

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 service and that additional passenger service on this line is not likely. Since the potential for additional passenger service on the Fresno Line does not appear likely and two train trips a day on the Fresno Line will not provide adequate passenger service, the SJJPA has been exploring the potential for expanding passenger service on the Sacramento Line. The SJJPA has indicated there is excess capacity on the Sacramento Subdivision and UPRR is willing to work with SJJPA and the State to enable passenger service on this line. In addition, the Sacramento Line extends north beyond downtown Sacramento and enables a superior connection to Sacramento International Airport, including additional population at a Natomas Station. The SJJPA has done a thorough study between to the two lines and the results of that study was documented in the SJJPA s agenda at its July 28, 2017 Board Meeting: http://sjjpa.com/meetings/previous-board-meetings. At this Board Meeting, the SJJPA approved a resolution selecting the Sacramento Line (west side of the City) as the option for environmental review to provide additional service to/from Sacramento. Given the low potential for the UPRR to allow the SJJPA to add passenger trains to the Fresno line and with only two (2) passenger trips a day, the Fresno Line would not provide an adequate number of trains to justify a Multi-Modal Facility on the Fresno Line which is why the Multi-Modal Facility Site #4 is not the preferred location for the City s Multi-Modal Facility. Conversely, with the SJJPA formally adopting a resolution to provide expanded passenger in the future to the Sacramento Line, Multi-Modal Facility Sites #1 (Bilby & Willard) and #2 (Elk Grove Blvd & Franklin) are more preferred from a passenger service potential stand point. Also, the SJJPA is planning on applying for grants for their operations on the Sacramento Line and it is possible that some of those SJJPA grants could be used to partially fund the City s Multi-Modal Facility but that is only if the City s Multi-Modal Facility is located on the Sacramento Line. [What track is AMTRAK currently using?]-please see the detailed response above. The SJJPA is envisioning increasing the number of trains providing passenger service when they are able to shift their services to the Sacramento Line (west line). For a summary of the SJJJPA s plans, please see the SJJPA s Business Plan on their website at: http://sjjpa.com/business-plan The site is almost 10 acres (combining three properties to make up the entire site). The design is still being refined but it is anticipated the 10 acre site will be able to accommodate from 700-900 vehicles. There will also be areas to store bikes, there will be bus dropoff and there will be an area for vehicles(uber & Lyft) dropping off passengers. That is correct. This [Open field southwest of Franklin Blvd/Elk Grove Blv] is a federal wildlife preserve. Regarding Site #3, Amtrak would not be reaching this location. It would have to be served by a future light rail extension. Once light rail is extended, this would be a good site in the future for a potential Multi-Modal Facility. The issue is the cost for Regional Transit to extend the light rail to this location is large and there is no funding identified for this light rail extension. At the last open house, the Regional Transit representative indicated the recent 4.3 mile extension of the Blue Line from Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River College cost $270 million. This distance from Cosumnes River College to Site #3 is roughly 3.5 miles. With no funding and no plans at this time to extend the Blue Line 3.5 miles to Site #3, the feasibility study shifted its focus to the heavy rail lines which have existing infrastructure in place to provide passenger 19

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 service within the City limits. When Regional Transit does secure the funding to extend the Blue Line into Elk Grove, then the City can reassess the potential for a future Multi- Modal Facility at Site #3. [For why is Southeast of Grant Line Rd/Survey Rd the last choice for location]-please see the detailed response to Question #1 above. The locations selected were based on the ability to provide a 1000 long platform adjacent to the rail line, 5 to 10 acres of open space so no residences or businesses were impacted, immediate access to the existing transportation network within the City and sites with elements that were lower risks to construction costs. For this Feasibility Study, there were two open houses that were advertised on social media, in the local newspaper, on the City s website, notifications were sent to neighborhood associations that we could reach, notifications were sent to business stakeholders, advance notices were provided at the City Council meetings 2 weeks prior to the open house and the open house notifications were posted to the Project Webpage: http://www.elkgrovecity.org/city_hall/departments_divisions/public_works/ca pital_improvements/elk_grove_multi-_modal_feasibility_study/ o Please see the responses below [to Where are the results of all of the locations identified? I only see one location? I am just wondering how an analysis can be made on all of the properties if only one is presented?] Where are the results of all of the locations identified? I only see one location? I am just wondering how an analysis can be made on all of the properties if only one is presented? o Project team response: ACEforward is a phased improvement plan proposed by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the managing agency for the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service, to increase service reliability and frequency, enhance passenger facilities, reduce travel times along the existing ACE service from San Jose to Stockton and extend ACE service to Manteca, Modesto, Ceres, Turlock and Merced. SJRRC has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) studying potential environmental effects of the proposed enhancements and identifying ways to avoid or mitigate them. The public review period for the ACEforward DEIR ended on August 31st. The team is now reviewing all of the comments and preparing the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which will include responses to the comments received and any changes proposed to the DEIR. SJRRC anticipates that the FEIR will be available in early 2018. Please visit www.aceforward.com for more information. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is the governing agency of the San Joaquin s Amtrak service which is managed by SJRRC. On July 28, 2017 the SJJPA Board unanimously took the following actions: Selected the Sacramento Subdivision as the option for environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide additional service to/from Sacramento Provided approval to submit an upcoming grant application for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) to support additional service to/from Sacramento SJJPA plans to submit a TIRCP grant application in January 2018 that would fund new equipment, construction of platforms/stations along the route, and make improvements 20

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 to the tracks where needed, in order to establish San Joaquin s Amtrak service along the Sacramento Subdivision. In November, the SJRRC Board of Directors will also consider including ACE as part of the TIRCP application, thereby allowing ACE to jointly plan new passenger rail service to Sacramento. The goal is implementing additional Amtrak San Joaquin service to/from Sacramento and Fresno and expanded ACE service from Natomas to Ceres with one train to San Jose, serving new Sacramento area station locations within 3 Years.) (Response: Criteria utilized in selecting a site included: the site needed to be within the existing City Limits, the site had to be located adjacent to the rail line, the site had to be able to accommodate a 1000 foot long passenger platform along the rail line, the site had to be at least 5 to 10 acres to accommodate the anticipated facilities/parking at the multi-modal station, the site needed to be readily available to the City s existing transportation network and there was a strong preference for the site to be on existing open space so existing residences and businesses would not be displaced for the multi-modal facility. Locations that fit all of the above criteria are not available within the City limits north of Elk Grove Blvd for the Sacramento Rail Line (west line). For the Fresno Rail Line (east line), please see the detailed explanation in the email chain below regarding the lack of passenger service on this line and why the Feasibility Study focus is on the Sacramento Rail Line (west line).) o (Response: The current plan is to present the Feasibility Study to City Council at the October 25, 2017 regular City Council meeting. Per the standard City Council protocol, the public will be allowed to provide input at this meeting.) I 100% am against location number one as it will not only increase traffic, decrease home values and potentially encourage homeless or those wishing to prevent crime a way to get to an area which could easily become venerable. If there is a need for the service, I believe there is more space and would be of more value at proposed location four. Thank-you for your time and consideration. As an Elk Grove resident, I strongly oppose adding a new Amtrak station to our city. My main concerns are as follows: 1. The cost and impact that the new station will bring to our community. I am not convinced the city has enough resources to maintain the security of its surrounding area and a very complexed population trains will bring. I would rather have the city allocates the funds to address the issues that need more attention, such as education, neighborhood safety, illegal marijuana plantation, and the outlet and casino in the pipeline. 2. There have already been several Amtrak service locations in/around Elk Grove including Capitol Corridor, Harbor Point (bus station), even Stockton station (40 min driving). I do not see the necessity to have another station in Elk Grove. 3. Elk Grove is a commuter town to serve the Great Sacramento Area. We have just spent a large fund to have a new built light rail that connects Elk Grove to Sacramento. Again, I do not see the necessity to have an Amtrak stop to serve the same purpose. Unless the city wants to convert Elk Grove into a bedroom town for bay area workers, having an Amtrak station then makes some sense. However, this move will face fierce competition from many cities closer to bay area than Elk Grove such as Stockton, Lodi, Manteca, Modesto, Ripon, even Galt, not mentioning Mountain 21

City of Elk Grove Elk Grove Multimodal Facility Feasibility Study Comment Log as of Thursday, October 05, 2017 House and Tracy. I do not expect we can win it in the long term simply because of the location. Thank you very much for your service! Specifically, I am strongly supportive of creating a multi-modal facility and believe that it should be built in the third preferred site location, which is on the corner of Big Horn Boulevard and Elk Grove Boulevard. The other locations are very far from the Laguna area and, as a result of the time and distance, many Laguna residents would not commute to the other three proposed locations. Moreover, having the facility located at the third preferred location would help reduce congestion both on the buses and on I-5. I currently take the bus to downtown Sacramento and the buses are almost always crowded and the freeway is frequently congested as well. Thus, locating the facility at the third preferred location (Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard) would ease pressure on the buses and ease the commute on I-5. Overall, in my view, the third preferred location is the ideal location for the facility and I ask you to consider this when the Elk Grove City Council votes on the facility in October. Thank you for your time and consideration. As Elk Grove residents and tax payer, we strongly oppose Train station in our city! We won't use or need the train, it only bring crime, pollution and noisy our living town! We cannot accept that! Please don't waste tax payer's money to ruin our living town! Use our money on safety and environment on this city! Thank you for your consideration. PROS: The idea is great, I am looking forward to use your transportation to go downtown from time to time. CONS: My main concern is the noise since I live very close to big horn Boulevard. QUESTION: How do you think the project will handle the train noise? o Project team response: Thank you for the comments. I ll forward your comments to the Design Team for consideration and your comments will also be added to the comment log that will be affixed to the Feasibility Study. Regarding the question of train noise, the rail line on the west side of the City is owned and operated by UPRR. It is our understanding UPPR currently runs some freight trains on that rail line today. The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) is responsible for the passenger service on the rail lines in Elk Grove. At the SJJPA s July 28, 2017 Board Meeting (http://sjjpa.com/meetings/previous-board-meetings), the SJJPA approved a resolution selecting the Sacramento Line (west side of the City) as the option for environmental review to provide additional passenger service to/from Sacramento. With the SJJPA s environmental review, public comments should be accepted by the SJJPA. As such, I m including Dan Leavitt of the SJJPA on this email so he can address your comment regarding train noise associated with increased passenger service on the Sacramento Line. Lastly, the City of Elk Grove has implemented a Quiet Zone at the Bilby Road crossing of the UPRR tracks. In a Quiet Zone, railroads have been directed to cease the routine sounding of their horns when approaching public highway-rail grade crossings. Train horns will still be used in emergency situations or to comply with other Federal Railroad Administration regulations and Union Pacific operating rules. To learn more about the Quiet Zone, please visit the following webpage on the City s website: http://www.elkgrovecity.org/city_hall/departments_divisions/public_works/ma intenance_and_operations/quiet_zones/ 22