TA Strategic Plan 2009-2013 Final

(1,1) -1- Cover-InsideCover_F.
indd 12/10/08 2:25:22 PM
www.smcta.com
1250 San Carlos Ave.

STRATEGIC PLAN
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Adopted December 2008

2009-2013
(1,1) -2- Cover-InsideCover_F.indd 12/10/08 2:25:28 PM
Board of Directors Executive Staff Acknowledgements

Rosanne Foust, Chair Executive Director
Representing South County Cities Michael J. Scanlon
Redwood City San Mateo County Transportation Authority C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee
Chief Administrative Officer
Rosalie O’Mahony, Vice Chair George Cameron Project Team Member Agency
Representing Central County Cities Marian Lee-Skowronek, Director, Planning & Development Bob Beyer San Mateo
Burlingame Chief Financial Officer Joe Hurley, Director, Transportation Authority Karen Borhmann Belmont
Gigi Harrington Melanie Choy, Manager, Capital Projects Planning Randy Breault Brisbane
Mark Church
Todd McIntyre, Manager, Special Projects April Chan Caltrain
Representing San Mateo County Chief Operating Officer
Board of Supervisors Chuck Harvey Ivy Tzur, Parsons Transportation Group Kenneth Folan Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Carmen Clark, Carmen Clark Consulting Gene Gonzalo CalTrans
Rich Gordon Chief Communications Officer Bob Schaevitz, URS Corporation Joseph Hurley San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Representing San Mateo County Rita Haskin
Duncan Jones Atherton
Board of Supervisors Staff/Consultant Support
Chief Development Officer Jon Lynch Redwood City
April Chan Liria Larano Rick Mao Colma
John Lee Ian McAvoy
Representing Cities-at-Large Richard Cook Bill Likens Ian McAvoy (Co-Chair) San Mateo County Transit District
San Mateo Special Assistant to the General Manager/CEO Jim DeHart Jim McKim Bill Meeker Burlingame
Mark Simon Marisa Espinosa Robert Tam Parviz Mokhtari San Carlos
Karyl Matsumoto Eric Harris Bill Welch
Representing SamTrans Board Steve Monowitz San Mateo County
Authority Secretary
South San Francisco Ron Holmes Tatum Mothershead Daly City
Martha Martinez
Syed Murtuza Burlingame
Jim Vreeland Citizens Advisory Committee
General Counsel Ruben Nino Menlo Park
Representing Northern County Cities Patricia A. Dixon, Chair Paul Young, Vice Chair
Hanson Bridgett Van Ocampo Pacifi ca
Pacifi ca David Miller Barbara Arietta Jim Bigelow
Robert Ovadia Daly City
Joan Cassman John Fox Richard Hedges
Larry Patterson San Mateo City
Randall Hees Steve Krause
Ron Popp Millbrae
Austin Mader-Clark Doris Maez
Jim Porter (Co-Chair) San Mateo County
Lawrence Shaine Nancy Stern
Ray Towne Foster City
April Vargas George Zimmerman
Sandy Wong C/CAG
Ad Hoc City Manager Committee

Jack Crist, Belmont
Patricia E. Martel, Daly City
James Nantell, Burlingame
Art Direction and Design

DRB Partners, San Jose, California
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4
2.0 1988 Measure A Program ................................................................................ 6
3.0 2009 – 2033 Measure A Program ...................................................................... 10

3.1 2004 Expenditure Plan Goals ....................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Program Category Descriptions ..............................................................................................10-16
4.0 Planning Process ......................................................................................... 18

4.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Public Outreach.......................................................................................................................18-19
5.0 Programming and Allocations Guidelines ............................................................ 22

5.1 Participants and Responsibilities ................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Non-competitive Programs and Projects ................................................................................23-24
5.3 Competitive Programs ............................................................................................................24-27
6.0 Fund Management ........................................................................................ 30

6.1 Measure A CIP and Funding Cycles.............................................................................................. 30
6.2 Matching Funds ......................................................................................................................30-32
6.3 Special Circumstances for Advancing Funds................................................................................ 32
7.0 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 34
APPENDICES
A. Public Outreach Comments ......................................................................................................36-41
B. Draft Strategic Plan Comments.................................................................................................42-43
TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction

1.0 Introduction
In 1988, San Mateo County voters approved Measure A, The 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan requires
a 20 year half-cent sales tax to fund and leverage addi- the TA to develop a Strategic Plan by December 31, 2008
tional funding for transportation projects and programs that will be updated every five years, at a minimum.
in San Mateo County. The approval of Measure A This document is the Strategic Plan which provides a
also created the San Mateo County Transportation policy framework for guiding programming and allocation
Authority (TA) to manage and administer the sales tax decisions within the structure established by the 2004
revenues generated. Expenditure Plan. It is essential to emphasize that this
plan is a living document that will continue to evolve
The TA is governed by a seven-member Board of as the TA implements the Measure A program.
Directors, and receives input from a volunteer Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC). The Board of Directors sets The Strategic Plan is organized into the following sections:
the overall policy direction for the TA and is composed
of: two Board members (appointed by the county Board • Section 1 provides an introduction to the TA,
of Supervisors); four Board members representing the the 1988 and the 2004 Measure A Programs and
the Strategic Plan
North County, Central County, South County and cities-
at-large (appointed by the Cities Selection Committee); • Section 2 provides information about the 1988
and one Board member (appointed by the San Mateo Measure A Program and accomplishments
County Transit District). The CAC, which serves as a • Section 3 provides information about the
liaison between the public and the Board of Directors, 2004 Expenditure Plan
is composed of 15 representatives from various • Section 4 describes the planning process
segments of the community. for preparing the Strategic Plan
• Section 5 describes the policy framework for guiding
Over the last 20 years, Measure A has generated approxi- programming and allocation decisions
mately $1.2 billion in local revenue and other earnings
• Section 6 outlines fund management guidelines
and an additional $1.2 billion in state and federal dollars.
San Mateo County is one of 19 “self-help” counties in • Section 7 outlines next steps
California that chose to tax itself in order to fulfill the
county’s transportation needs. As a self-help county,
the TA has been able to accelerate the completion of
major projects by bridging funding gaps, leveraging
other fund sources, and providing 100 percent of project
funding, where necessary. After 20 years of financing
noteworthy projects, the 1988 sales tax measure will
expire December 31, 2008.
In 2004, 75.3 percent of the San Mateo County

electorate reauthorized the Measure A program,
including a Transportation Expenditure Plan, for an
additional 25 years (2009 – 2033). The programs,
identified by the cities, local agencies and citizens of
San Mateo County, include all modes of transportation
and address both current and anticipated congestion
needs in San Mateo County.

4
CHAPTER 2
1988 Measure A
Program

2.0 1988 Measure A Program
The 1988 adoption of the Measure A half-cent sales tax Caltrain improvements were deemed the number one
in San Mateo County was dedicated to generating local priority of the 1988 Expenditure Plan. Of the generated
revenue for transportation projects and services. When revenues, approximately 46 percent were slated for the
the program expires at the end of 2008, it is estimated transit program which included Caltrain Improvements,
that it will have brought in $1.2 billion in local sales-tax Grade Separations and Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
dollars and other earnings and an additional $1.2 billion Another 29 percent was designated for Streets and
in leveraged state and federal dollars, for a $2.4 billion Highways, 20 percent for the Local Entities, 3 percent
investment in transportation infrastructure. for Paratransit and 0.71 percent for Transportation
System Management and Bicycles.
Figure 1. 1988 Measure A Expenditure Plan
Significant strides have been made with the first genera-
tion of the Measure A program. Most notably, Measure
A revenues contributed to the Caltrain right of way
purchase in 1991 and $14 million for the purchase of the
Dumbarton right of way. This proved to be one of the
most forward thinking long-term strategies for preserv-
ing transportation infrastructure in that, today, right of
way purchases are extremely difficult and expensive to
secure. Measure A also provided funding for Caltrain
operational improvements such as the construction
of passing tracks and new signal and control systems
to improve service reliability and station and parking
improvements in San Bruno, Belmont, San Carlos,
Redwood City, Menlo Park, and San Mateo to improve
safety, customer service and satisfaction. To improve
safety and reduce local traffic congestion, $148 million
46.1% Transit
was allocated for the construction of nine grade separa-
29.3% Streets and Highways
tion projects which have been completed in South San
20.0% Local Entities
Francisco, Millbrae, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood
3.1% Paratransit
City to improve safety and reduce local traffic conges-
0.8% Administration
tion. Approximately $500 million has been expended for
0.7% Transportation System Management
highway improvements such as auxiliary lanes through-
.01% Bicycle
out the Highway 101 corridor, Highway 92 improve-
ments, and the Highway 101/Oyster Point Interchange
in South San Francisco to improve safety and reduce
freeway congestion. At a local level, approximately
$196 million was passed to local cities and the county
for local street and road improvements. To supplement
fixed-route operations and provide alternatives to driving,
investments also have been made to fund local shuttles,
paratransit and bicycle route planning.

6
Table 1. 1988 Measure A Revenue
$80
$70
$60
$50
Millions
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2008*
2004
2006
2000
2003
2002
2005
2001
2007
1994
1996
1990
1993
1999
1992
1995
1998
1989
1991
1997
Fiscal Year
Table 2. 1988 Measure A Expenditures

$90
$80
$70
$60
Millions
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2008*
2004
2006
2000
2003
2002
2005
2001
2007
1994
1996
1990
1993
1999
1992
1995
1998
1989
1991
1997
Fiscal Year
*2008 data is based on projections
By December 31, 2008, when the 1988 Measure A projects/programs in the 1988 Measure A Program
Program will expire, the TA will have expended 61 percent that have commenced. It should be noted that the
of the total estimated sales tax revenues and other earn- delivery of 1988 Measure A funded projects will
ings on San Mateo County transportation improvements. continue beyond the expiration of the 1988 Measure A
Prior to the expiration of the 1988 Measure A Program, Program, in keeping with the commitment to the voters
the TA Board of Directors will take action on the program- who approved the 1988 Measure A Program.
ming of all estimated remaining sales tax funds to

7
CHAPTER 3
2009-2033
Measure A
Program

3.0 2009 – 2033 Measure A Program
On January 1, 2009, the 2009 – 2033 Measure A Figure 2. 2004 Expenditure Plan
Program will commence, continuing the generation of
sales tax revenues in San Mateo County for transporta-
tion facilities, services and programs. The voter-approved
Expenditure Plan sets the program categories and
percentage split of the sales tax revenues to each of
the program categories described below. Additionally,
the guidelines and requirements contained in the
Expenditure Plan are highlighted in this section.
3.1 2004 Expenditure Plan Goals

The goals of the 2004 Expenditure Plan Program are:
• Reduce commute corridor congestion

• Make regional connections
30.0% Transit
• Enhance safety
27.5% Highways
• Meet local mobility needs
22.5% Local Streets & Transportation
Meeting these goals involves investment in multiple 15.0% Grade Separation
transportation modes. Funding is identified for six 3.0% Pedestrian & Bicycle
primary program categories: Transit, Highways, Local 1.0% Administration
Streets/Transportation, Grade Separations, Pedestrian 1.0% Alternative Congestion Relief
and Bicycle, and Alternative Congestion Relief programs.
Each category is designated for a percentage share
3.2 Program Category Details
of the total projected revenues which are currently
estimated at $1.5 billion (in 2004 dollars) over the life The Measure A Program includes six programs:
of the Measure A Program, as illustrated in Figure 2 . Transit, Highways, Local Streets/Transportation, Grade
Separations, Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Alternative
The 2004 Expenditure Plan outlines restrictions in the Congestion Relief programs. Funding can be used for
use of Measure A funds to target funding to transporta- planning, design development, construction projects
tion projects in San Mateo County and maximize the or operations in San Mateo County.
leveraging of other funding. The restrictions include:
Table 3 lists the total estimated sales tax revenue
• Measure A funds may not be used to replace or over the life of the measure for each program category
supplant existing funds and resources on projects and matching funds from potential local, state and
• Measure A funds may only be used for transportation federal sources.
facilities and services
• Measure A funds may only be used for projects within The definition and purpose of each program area are
San Mateo County, with exception to the systemwide described in the following paragraphs. Also indicated
costs for Caltrain Improvements, and for Highway for each program area, if applicable, are key parameters
projects that minimally extend into adjacent counties identified in the 2004 Expenditure Plan.

10
Transit – Local Shuttle
Local shuttle services are transit shuttle services
The Transit Program provides funding for multiple
provided with vehicles that are typically larger than vans
modes of transit including Caltrain, Local Shuttles,
and smaller than buses. The purpose of the Local Shuttle
Accessible Services, Ferry, the Dumbarton Corridor
program is to meet local mobility needs and provide
and BART.
access to regional transit. These services are envisioned
to complement fixed-route bus and rail services.
– Caltrain
Caltrain is a 77-mile, 32 station commuter rail system
– Accessible Services
that provides service in the counties of San Francisco,
Accessible Services are targeted for paratransit and
San Mateo and Santa Clara. Caltrain operates 98
other transportation services to accommodate people
weekday trains with less frequent service on week-
with disabilities, seniors with mobility limitations, and
ends, serving nearly 12 million customers a year.
those who need assistance using the existing transporta-
The purpose of the Caltrain program is to fund system
tion services. The purpose of the Accessible Services
upgrades and service expansions. Up to 50 percent
program is to fund Americans with Disabilities Act
of the funding can be used for operating expenses.
(ADA) paratransit services, such as Redi-Wheels, and
support the operating and capital needs of additional new
Table 3. Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories
Estimated Sales Tax Estimated Match

Program Category % Share
(in 2004 dollars) (in 2004 dollars)
Transit (30%)
Caltrain 16.0% $240.0 million $250 million
Local Shuttles 4.0% $60.0 million $60 million
Accessible Services 4.0% $60.0 million $228 million
Ferry 2.0% $30.0 million $92 million
Dumbarton Corridor 2.0% $30.0 million $415 million
BART 2.0% $30.0 million $120 million
Highways (27.5%)
Key Congested Areas 17.3% $260.0 million $260 million
Supplemental 10.2% $153.0 million $65 million
Local Streets / Transportation 22.5% $337.5 million $527 million
Grade Separations 15.0% $225.0 million $125 million
Pedestrian and Bicycle 3.0% $45.0 million $25 million
Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1.0% $15.0 million $15 million
TOTAL 100.0%* $1,500 million* $2,200 million*
*Note: Includes up to 1% for Program Administration

11
programs for eligible seniors and people with disabilities. The Dumbarton commuter rail project, which is over-
The ADA requires transit agencies to provide accessible seen by the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory
services to people who are unable to use fixed-route Committee (DRCPAC) and project managed by Caltrain,
bus or rail service. is currently at 10 percent design and in the environmental
clearance phase. Once these tasks are complete, the
– Ferry DRCPAC will focus on solidifying the funding plan before
Ferries provide transit service via waterways. The purpose defining specific projects to be funded by this program.
of the Ferry program is to invest in cost-effective ferry
services in San Mateo County, where currently, there – Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
is no ferry service. These services will increase transit BART is a heavy rail system that operates throughout
options to meet daily transportation needs and also the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda and
provide countywide transportation relief (and transport Contra Costa. BART serves more than 362,000 riders
of emergency personnel) during times of emergencies. on a typical weekday on its network of 104 miles and
These services will be operated by the San Francisco Bay 43 stations. The purpose of this program is to fund capi-
Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA), tal investments and operating expenditures associated
a regional transportation agency created by the California with the San Mateo County BART extension, which was
Legislature to develop ferry transit and waterborne emer- completed in 2003.
gency response services for the San Francisco Bay Area.
Two ferry projects, one in Redwood City and the other As outlined in an agreement between BART, SamTrans
in South San Francisco, have been identified in the 2004 and the TA, 2 percent of Measure A sales tax revenues
Expenditure Plan and are the two projects that are eligible will be allocated to BART on an annual basis to fund
to be funded by this program. a portion of the BART operating costs in San Mateo
County. Within the general guidelines of the Measure A
– Dumbarton Corridor Program, specific projects to be funded by this program
The Dumbarton Corridor, which connects the Peninsula are to be defined by BART consistent with and within the
to the East Bay, has been identified as a key corridor parameters of the agreement between BART, SamTrans
for future commuter rail service. This corridor provides and the TA.
a critical component of establishing a regional rail
network as identified in the Metropolitan Transportation Highways
Commission (MTC) Regional Rail Plan. Building on the
The purpose of this program is to reduce congestion
investment of purchasing the Dumbarton Corridor
on roadways within San Mateo County. This program
right of way with funding from the 1988 Measure A
is divided into two categories: Key Congested Areas
Program, the purpose of this program is to fund station
are focused on removing bottlenecks in the most
facilities and rail corridor enhancements in East Palo Alto,
congested highway commute corridors; and
Menlo Park and Redwood City.
Supplemental Roadways are focused on reducing
congestion and improving throughput along secondary
commute corridors.

12
– Key Congested Areas – Supplemental Roadways
The 2004 Expenditure Plan allocates a specified amount The 2004 Expenditure Plan includes a partial list of
of sales tax revenue to five key congested corridors specific projects eligible to receive Measure A funding.
in San Mateo County. Below is the list of eligible projects Other projects (not listed in the plan) can be considered.
as identified in the 2004 Expenditure Plan: Below is the partial list of candidate projects as identified
in the 2004 Expenditure Plan:
• Highway 280 North Improvements
– Reconstruct I-280/Route 1 Interchange • Route 35 (I-280-Sneath Lane) widening (San Bruno)
(Daly City) • US 101/Produce Avenue Interchange
– Construct Auxiliary Lanes between I-380 (South San Francisco)
and Hickey Boulevard (Daly City,
• Route 92 (I-280/Route 35) truck climbing lane
South San Francisco, San Bruno)
(San Mateo)
• Coastside Highway Improvements • Willow Road adaptive signal control system
(Menlo Park)
– Route 1/San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement
(Pacifi ca) • US 101 (Sierra Point Parkway – SF/SM County Line)
– Route 1/Manor Drive overcrossing improvement auxiliary lanes (South San Francisco, Brisbane)
and widening (Pacifi ca) • Geneva Avenue extension (Daly City, Brisbane)
– Route 1 and 92 safety and operational improvements
• I-280/John Daly Boulevard Overcrossing (north side)
(within and in the proximity of Half Moon Bay)
widening (San Bruno)
• Highway 92 Improvements • Junipero Serra Boulevard Improvements (Daly City,
Colma, South San Francisco)
– Auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements
between I-280 and the San Mateo Hayward Bridge • US 101/Candlestick Point Interchange (Brisbane)
(San Mateo County, Foster City)
• US 101 (Sierra Point Parkway – San Bruno Avenue)
auxiliary lanes (Brisbane, South San Francisco)
• Highway 101 Mid-county Improvements
• I-280/I-380 local access improvement (San Bruno)
– Reconstruction of the Highway 101-Broadway
Interchange (Burlingame) • Highway 101/Sierra Point Pkwy Interchange
– Modifi cation of the Highway 101/Peninsula Avenue replacement and Lagoon Way extension (Brisbane)
Interchange (San Mateo, Burlingame) • Triton Drive widening (Foster City)
– Operational improvements on Highway 101
from Hillsdale to Route 92 (San Mateo) • Sand Hill Road signal coordination (Menlo Park)
• Woodside Road widening (US 101-El Camino Real)
• Highway 101 South Improvements (Redwood City)
– Reconstruct the Highway 101/Woodside Road
Interchange (Redwood City)
– Highway 101 improvements between Highway 84 and
the Santa Clara County line and access improvements
to the Dumbarton Bridge (Redwood City, Menlo Park,
East Palo Alto)

13
Local Streets and Transportation Grade Separation
The purpose of this program is to provide funding to the The Grade Separation program involves eliminating
20 cities and the County of San Mateo for the improve- at-grade railroad crossings. This can be done by raising
ment and maintenance of local transportation facilities or lowering roads and/or train tracks at different eleva-
and services. This program provides money to local tions. The purpose of this program is to provide funding
jurisdictions based on the following formula: 50 percent for the construction or upgrade of grade separations
by population and 50 percent by the number of road along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines in San Mateo
miles within the jurisdiction. Annually, the TA will update County to improve safety and relieve local traffic
the road miles and population figures based on California congestion. The rail crossings to be considered for
Department of Transportation and Department of Finance Measure A funding are listed in the 2004 Expenditure
data. Table 4 below summarizes the estimated allocation Plan and are located in the cities of South San Francisco,
and funding over the next 25 years (in 2004 dollars). San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood
City, Atherton, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
Table 4. Estimated Annual Distribution to
San Mateo County and Cities Pedestrian and Bicycles
Bicycling and walking are sustainable forms of transpor-
Estimated tation. The purpose of this program is to fund specific
Local
Allocation (%) Funding
Jurisdiction
($2004)
projects to encourage and improve bicycling and walk-
ing conditions. Qualified expenditures include paths,
Atherton 1.886 $ 6,365,250 trails and bridges over roads and highways. The 2004
Belmont 3.543 $ 11,957,625 Expenditure Plan includes a partial list of eligible bicycle
Brisbane 0.818 $ 2,760,750 and pedestrian projects which are listed below. Other
projects will be considered.
Burlingame 4.206 $ 14,195,250
Colma 0.299 $ 1,009,125 • Route 1/Santa Rosa Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing
(Pacifica)
Daly City 10.413 $ 35,143,875
• Route 1 pedestrian/bike trail from Montara through
East Palo Alto 3.215 $ 10,850,625 Half Moon Bay (San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay)
Foster City 3.364 $ 11,353,500 • Route 35/Route 1 pedestrian/bike overcrossing
Half Moon Bay 1.596 $ 5,386,500 (Daly City)
Hillsborough 3.000 $ 10,125,000 • Millbrae Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike

overcrossing (Millbrae)
Menlo Park 4.851 $ 16,372,125
• Hillcrest Boulevard/US 101 pedestrian/bike
Millbrae 2.917 $ 9,844,875 overcrossing to Bay Trail (Millbrae)
Pacifi ca 5.174 $ 17,462,250 • US 101 near Hillsdale Boulevard pedestrian/bike
Portola Valley 1.488 $ 5,022,000 overcrossing (San Mateo)
Redwood City 9.612 $ 32,440,500 • Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike

overcrossing (Belmont)
San Bruno 5.034 $ 16,989,750
• Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway pedestrian/bike
San Carlos 4.271 $ 14,414,625 tunnel upgrade (Menlo Park)
San Mateo 11.797 $ 39,814,975 • Willow Road/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing
S. San Francisco 7.949 $ 25,815,375 (Menlo Park)
Woodside 1.683 $ 5,680,125 • Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving

(San Mateo County)
San Mateo Co. 13.184 $ 44,496,000

14
Alternative Congestion Relief
The Alternative Congestion Relief program promotes
transit and non-traditional methods of commuting to
reduce reliance on the automobile and use of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) to promote efficient use
of the transportation network. Commute alternatives
receive 0.8 and ITS projects receive 0.2 percent of the
Alternative Congestion Relief funds. Example projects
include carpool services, transit subsidies, car shar-
ing and telecommuting. The program also utilizes
information technology to assist in efficient use of the
transportation network. Example projects include travel
time signage on highways, accident alerts and rerouting
information. This program is essential in completing
a multimodal program to maximize transportation
options and efficiencies.

15
Table 5. Program Category Details
Project
Program Category Description Purpose
Parameters
Transit
Caltrain Existing commuter rail Upgrade and expand Caltrain Up to 50% funding
system providing train services in San Mateo County; for operations
service in San Francisco, Fund systemwide improvements
San Mateo and Santa Clara and safety
Counties
Local Shuttles Transit services provided Meet local mobility needs and n/a
with vehicles that are provide access to regional transit
typically larger than vans and
smaller than buses
Accessible Targeted transportation Provide paratransit and other n/a
Services services for people that have transportation services to eligible
special mobility needs seniors and people with disabilities
Ferry Transit service provided by Establish ferry services in San Mateo For services in
vessels on waterways County Redwood City and
South San Francisco
Dumbarton A key corridor connecting Construct stations and rail n/a
Corridor the East Bay with the enhancements in East Palo Alto,
Peninsula identifi ed for future Menlo Park and Redwood City
commuter rail service
BART Existing heavy rail system Maintain and operate BART Projects to be
providing train services in extension to San Mateo County programmed by
San Francisco, San Mateo, BART
Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties
Highways
Key Highways in San Mateo Reduce congestion and increase Projects to be
Congested County throughput on highways selected from
Areas eligible project list
Supplemental Local, collector, arterial, Reduce congestion and increase n/a
state route roadways in San throughput on roadways
Mateo County
Local Streets / Transportation services, Improve and maintain local Projects to be
Transportation roadways owned and transportation facilities and services programmed by
maintained by the cities and cities and/or county
County of San Mateo
Grade Separations Eliminate at-grade railroad Improve safety and relieve local n/a
crossings traffi c congestion
Pedestrian and Pedestrians and bicycle Encourage walking and bicycling n/a
Bicycle facilities
Alternative Commute alternatives and Effi ciently use transportation 0.8 percent is
Congestion Relief Intelligent Transportation network and reduce reliance on for commute
Programs Systems (ITS) automobiles alternatives and
0.2 percent for ITS
projects

16
CHAPTER 4
Planning Process

4.0 Planning Process
Public involvement is critical to the success of the 4.2 Public Outreach
25-year (2009 – 2033) Measure A Program. Building
on the outreach involved with the conception of the TA staff made a special effort to solicit input from the
Measure A Program and generation of the 2004 public as a way to educate them about Measure A and
Expenditure Plan, the development of this Strategic the TA, including the positive impact of the half-cent
Plan included direction from policy-makers and input sales tax on countywide mobility over the last 20 years.
from technical experts, community leaders and the Given that the Strategic Plan is anchored to the 2004
public-at-large. Expenditure Plan, which was developed with public input,
it was essential to remind the public of what is included
4.1 Participants in the 2004 Plan and the purpose of the Strategic Plan.
Public input was needed to develop two key components
The TA Board convened a subcommittee to oversee of the Strategic Plan: criteria for project evaluation and
the development of the Strategic Plan and execution prioritization; and monitoring programs and performance
of a sound outreach strategy. Three key groups helped measures that would be used to ensure efficient use of
shape the planning process and outreach approach: Measure A money.
the TA Citizens Advisory Committee, the Ad-hoc
Committee of City Managers specifically formed Public outreach was conducted in two phases between
for this purpose, and the City/County Association July and September. The first phase focused on exist-
of Governments Technical Advisory Committee ing stakeholder groups representing a wide range of
comprised of city public works directors, engineers, perspectives. This phase provided the opportunity to
and planners. The public also informed the process go deeper into specific interest areas, while also inform-
to ensure a strong connection between policy deci- ing the second phase of outreach to the general public
sions and the needs of San Mateo County communi- through community meetings. The public outreach
ties as expressed through the approved Measure A effort solicited input on types of transportation projects,
Expenditure Plan. evaluation criteria, and performance measures. In order
to publicize the community meetings, notices were sent
to 46 print, five radio and 10 television media outlets, as
well as several organizations and community groups.
Figure 3. Participants
TA Board
(Strategic Plan
Subcommittee)
C/CAG
TAC
Project Manager General

TA CAC Public
(TA Staff)
Ad Hoc
City
Managers Consultants
(URS,
Carmen Clark)

18
During Phase I, meetings were held with the following The public also discussed types of projects they thought
stakeholder groups: were important to be considered for Measure A funding.
Input included congestion relief roadway improvements,
• C/CAG Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee more shuttle services to Caltrain and customer service
• C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental innovations. A complete summary of the input gathered
Quality Committee from the outreach process can be found in Appendix A.
• Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee
The draft plan was released October 20 for a two-week
• Committee for Green Foothills public comment period. Comments included concerns
• Menlo Park Transportation Management Program regarding pedestrian and bicycle program funding,
• Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance the eligibility of specific projects to receive Measure A
funding, and questions regarding the process by which
• SamTrans and Caltrain Accessibility Advisory projects will be reviewed. A complete summary of the
Committees
comments received on the draft Strategic Plan during the
• SamTrans Citizens Advisory Committee public comment period can be found in Appendix B.
• San Mateo County Economic Development
Association The common theme from the public was the desire for
• San Mateo County Paratransit Coordinating Council an efficient transportation network that maximizes their
transportation options, meets their travel needs and
efficiently uses Measure A funds.
During Phase II, four public-at-large meetings were held in:
• Pacifica (Coastside)
• Burlingame (Central county)
• Daly City (North county)
• Redwood City (South county)
Key comments received from the stakeholders and the
public emphasized the importance of particular criteria
that should be used in evaluating and prioritizing projects
and performance measures. They included:
• Evaluating the project readiness as it relates to the

planning process that the project was subject to
as well as the funding commitment to advance the
project
• Considering geographical equity when looking at
the investment decisions for the whole Measure A
Program
• Measuring the effectiveness relating the projects
costs to it benefi ts such as congestion relief,
system connectivity, improved safety and customer
satisfaction

19
CHAPTER 5
Programming
and Allocations
Guidelines

5.0 Programming and Allocations Guidelines
This chapter defines the policy framework that will Project Initiators can be any person or entity that devel-
guide fund programming and allocation processes ops a project idea. In order for the project to be consid-
and decisions. There are three subsections in this ered for Measure A funding, the Project Initiator will need
chapter. Section 5.1 describes the participants involved to garner the support of an eligible Project Sponsor to
in the Measure A Program and their respective roles and submit the project to the TA for funding consideration.
responsibilities. Section 5.2 describes the programming The Project Sponsors are the entities that interface with
and allocation process for non-competitive programs the TA. They are identified in the 2004 Expenditure Plan
(projects with automatic entitlements to annual alloca- and listed above.
tions). Section 5.3 describes the programming and allo-
cation process for competitive programs (new projects Project Sponsors are responsible for working with the
that will be proposed through an application process). Project Initiators and submitting competitive projects to
the TA for funding consideration. Project Sponsors are
5.1 Participants and Responsibilities also responsible for project development and implemen-
tation. They can manage or operate the projects them-
The Measure A Program involves four key participants: selves or they can identify a Project Manager or Operator
Project Initiator, Project Sponsor, Project Manager/ and contract out for those services. The Transportation
Operator and the Transportation Authority. Authority is responsible for administering the Measure A
Program.
Table 6. Participants and Responsibilities
Participant Responsibilities
Project Initiator - Recommend Project to Sponsor
(All eligible)
Project Sponsor - Submit Funding Request to the TA

(Identifi ed in Expenditure Plan)
- Solidify Funding Plan
- Develop Project
- Implement Project
- Submit Monitoring Reports
- Sign Funding Agreements
Project Manager/Operator - Plan Project
(To be identifi ed by Project Sponsor)
- Engineer Project
- Construct Project
- Operate Services
Transportation Authority - Evaluate and Prioritize Projects

- Program and Allocate Funds
- Monitor Projects / Programs
- Sign Funding Agreements

22
Table 7. Project Sponsors
Program Category Project Sponsors
Transit
Caltrain SamTrans, Joint Powers Board
Local Shuttles SamTrans
Accessible Services SamTrans
Ferry South San Francisco, Redwood City
Dumbarton Corridor SamTrans
BART SamTrans
Highways Caltrans, Cities, San Mateo County
Local Streets / Transportation Cities, San Mateo County
Grade Separations SamTrans, Cities, San Mateo County,
Joint Powers Board
Pedestrian and Bicycle Cities, San Mateo County
Alternative Congestion Relief Cities, San Mateo County
Programs
5.2 Non-competitive Programs For the Transit: BART within San Mateo County program,
and Projects as outlined in an agreement between BART, SamTrans
and the TA, 2 percent of Measure A sales tax revenues
There are program and projects within the Measure A
will be allocated to BART on an annual basis.
Program that are not subject to a competitive TA process.
Qualified programs are those that have committed
For the Transit: Accessible Service program, funding is
funding designated in the 2004 Expenditure Plan or from
committed to the continuation and expansion of para-
a previously executed funding agreement. Qualified proj-
transit services operated by SamTrans as Redi-Wheels.
ects include existing transit services that are currently
Other supplemental services to be funded within this
being funded with 1988 Measure A sales tax proceeds.
program have not yet been identified and will be consid-
ered as new projects subject to the guidelines described
– Qualified Programs and Projects in Section 5.3.
There are four programs and projects that are non-com-
petitive within the 2009-2033 program: For the Transit: Local Shuttles program, funding is
committed to existing shuttle services that have been
• Transit: BART within San Mateo County
funded by the 1988 Measure A Program subject to
• Transit : Accessible Services acceptable performance. New shuttle services to be
• Transit: Shuttles funded within this program have not yet been identified
and will be considered as new projects subject to the
• Local Streets and Transportation
guidelines described in Section 5.3.

23
For the Local Streets and Transportation program, the 5.3 Competitive Programs
TA is committed to providing 22.5 percent of Measure A
Competitive programs are those in which new projects
funding to the cities and county of San Mateo for mainte-
proposed within each program category will compete for
nance and improvements of local transportation facilities.
Measure A funding. The competitive programs include:
The specific amount for each entity is determined based
on the following formula: 50 percent by population and • Transit
50 percent by the number of road miles within each juris-
diction. Annually, the TA will update the road miles and – Caltrain
population figures based on California Department – Local Shuttles (Not including
1988 Measure A funded services)
of Transportation and Department of Finance data.
– Accessible Services (Not including
paratransit services)
– Process
The programming and allocations process for projects – Ferry
with committed funding are as follows: – Dumbarton Rail
• Highways
1. Staff Recommendation
Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year • Grade Separations
(July 1 – June 30), the TA will estimate the • Pedestrian and Bike Facilities
amount of projected revenues available for the
non-competitive programs and projects. Based • Alternative Congestion Relief Programs
on these estimates, the TA staff will make a
programming and allocation recommendation The process for receiving funding for new projects is:
to the Board.
2. TA Board Consideration 1. Call for Projects
The Board will consider the recommendations as The TA will issue a Call for Projects by program
part of the annual TA budgeting process. Board requesting Project Sponsor(s) to submit projects
approval will allow staff to allocate the money for Measure A funding consideration. The
and complete the annual funding commitment. frequency of the Call for Projects will differ by
program and range from one-time, annual, to
3. Funding Agreements multiple over the 25-year duration of Measure A.
Prior to receiving any disbursements of funds, As indicated in the 2004 Measure A Expenditure
the receiving entity will need to execute a funding Plan, the TA will allocate and fund projects in the
agreement with the TA. The standard funding Accessible Services program category annually.
agreement outlines the understanding between the The specifi c funding cycles for the other programs
funding recipient and the TA regarding the amount are to be determined based on funding availability,
of funding, purpose of the funds, payment terms, program need and program readiness.
reporting requirements, and other obligations
connected to the receipt of funding.
4. Progress Report Submittals
Project Sponsors will be required to provide
annual progress reports to monitor and document
appropriate use of funds. Progress reports also
will be used for the Local Shuttles program to
measure performance for continued receipt of
Measure A funding.

24
Within a given timeframe, the Project Sponsor(s) 2. Project Evaluation and Prioritization
responding to the Call for Projects will need to The TA will assemble Project Review committees
complete a project application to compete for to evaluate project applications and proposals.
Measure A funds. A procedures manual will be The review will be based on criteria outlined in
made available to assist the Project Sponsors in the Call for Projects. There are fi ve categories
completing the application. The application will of criteria that will be considered for project
require the following information: evaluation and selection: Need, Policy Consistency,
Readiness, Effectiveness and Other. Example
– Identifi cation of Project Initiator, Project Sponsor,
Project Manager/Operator and other participants in criteria are listed in Table 8.
the project
– A compelling project justifi cation and project
As a first step, the Need for a project must be
effectiveness assessment established to be considered for funding. With
that basis, the project will be reviewed for Policy
– A description of the planning process in developing
the project and support letters
Consistency. Is the project consistent with the
goals of the 2004 Expenditure Plan and the
– Project assessment based on criteria established in Countywide Transportation Plan? Does it support
the call for projects
the policies of the sponsoring city’s General
– Project scope, schedule and budget Plan and Specifi c Plans? How does this project
– A reasonable capital and operating funding plan contribute to a larger public goal?
– Establishment of baseline performance measures
reporting conditions Readiness measures the level of public and
– Supplemental information tailored to each program stakeholder support and viability of the project to
category be funded and implemented. Key indicators are the
quality of planning processes that were engaged to
define the project, level of support from key
stakeholders and the public and availability of
resources to design, implement and fund the project.
Table 8. Project Selection and Prioritization Categories

and Example Criteria
Need Policy Consistency Readiness Effectiveness Other

Project 2004 Expenditure Plan Planning Process Congestion Relief Economic
Justifi cation Development
Countywide Stakeholder Support System
Transportation Plan Connectivity Geographic Equity
Funding
Regional and Local Plans Commitment Ridership Environmental Impact
Safety Support Transit-

Oriented
Cost Development
Reliability
Funding Match

25
Effectiveness criteria will be used to evaluate the 3. Staff Recommendation
performance merits of the project. If the TA invests Based on review by the Project Review Committee,
in a major highway improvement, how much staff will develop a project funding recommendation
congestion will be relieved? If it invests in a grade for Board consideration. The recommendation will
separation, how much does it improve safety and be clearly anchored to the program-specifi c project
reduce local traffi c congestion? If the TA invests evaluation and prioritization criteria.
in a pedestrian/bike bridge, how many pedestrians
and bicyclists are going to use it? If it invests in 4. TA Board Approval
The TA Board will take action on the programming
a new shuttle service, how many new riders are
of Measure A funding. This ensures commitment
going to use it? Effectiveness criteria will help
to the project. In a separate action, the Board will
measure benefi ts against the cost for building
allocate funding as part of the TA’s annual budget
and implementing these projects.
approval process. This action ensures timely
availability of funds.
Other Criteria captures additional critical
considerations in evaluating projects. To what 5. Funding Agreements
extent does the project support economic Prior to receiving any disbursements of funds,
development? What is the project’s impact on the receiving entity will be required to execute
the environment? Can the impacts be mitigated? a funding agreement with the TA. The standard
Does the project support transit-oriented funding agreement outlines the understanding
development? Are land use and transportation between the funding recipient and the TA regarding
decisions linked together to achieve effi cient the amount of funding, purpose of the funds,
transportation options? And lastly, does the payment terms, reporting requirements and other
project contribute towards geographical equity obligations connected to the receipt of funding.
for the total Measure A program? The Measure A
program is a countywide effort that must take into 6. Monitoring Report Submittals
consideration investments throughout the county. In order to ensure appropriate and effi cient use
It should be noted that the 2004 Expenditure Plan of Measure A funds, the Project Sponsors will be
specifi es that projects which support transit- required to submit monitoring reports.
oriented development will be given priority.

26
– Capital Projects
For capital projects, Project Sponsors will be required to
submit monitoring reports during design development
and construction. The content of the reports will
be focused on project scope, schedule and budget.
Post-construction, the TA will monitor the use and
effectiveness of the projects. This information will
be used to inform future investment decisions.
Table 9. Capital Project Monitoring Program

Project Post-
Development construction
Type of Active Education
Monitoring
Performance Scope Usage
Measures
Schedule
Effectiveness
Budget
Responsible Party Project Sponsor TA
– Operating Projects
For operating projects, Project Sponsors will be required
to submit performance reports. Sample performance
measures include service effectiveness, service quality
and customer satisfaction. This monitoring program
will assist the TA in justifying the continued funding for
approved operating projects. If performance measures
indicate less then acceptable performance, the TA will
work with the Project Sponsor to set up a mitigation
program and achieve improvements as a condition of
continued funding from the Measure A Program.
Table 10. Operating Project Monitoring Program
Example - Matching Fund

Performance
- Effectiveness
Measures
- Service Quality
- Customer Satisfaction
- Project Specifi c TBD
Responsible Project Sponsor
Party

27
CHAPTER 6
Fund Management

6.0 Fund Management
In addition to defining the process for funding allocation range from one-time, annual to multiple over the 25-year
and programming, the TA is charged with responsibly duration of Measure A. Annual allocations are scheduled
managing the public’s sales tax revenues and leveraging to be made to the Transit: Accessible Services, Transit:
funds in order to achieve the goals of the 2004 Measure BART within San Mateo County, Transit: Shuttles, and
A Expenditure Plan. The TA will focus on programming Local Streets and Transportation program categories.
and allocating funds to projects as money becomes With the identification of prioritized projects and contin-
available as well as maximizing matching funds to ued monitoring of the local and countywide short- and
increase the total investment in San Mateo County long-term needs and program readiness, the CIP will be
transportation infrastructure and services. The TA will fine tuned on an on-going basis.
treat requests for advancement of funds as exceptions
to the rule. Advancement of funds must be justified with 6.2 Matching Funds
compelling reasons that offset the impact of financing
fees and/or timing of funds to other projects. In order to maximize investment in transportation proj-
ects, the ability for Project Sponsors to leverage funds
6.1 Measure A CIP and Funding Cycles will be a key criterion in the evaluation and prioritization
of projects.
The TA will develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to
manage the influx of revenues and availability of match- – Existing Sources
ing funds with anticipated project expenditures. The CIP Navigating through the funding network and securing
will serve as a basis for determining the specific Call for matching funds is complicated. The following provides a
Projects cycle for each program category. The Call for brief summary of the existing federal, state and local fund
Projects cycle may differ for each program category and sources that can be leveraged with Measure A funding.
Regional funds are considered as local funds.
Table 11. Federal Funding Sources (in no particular order)

Funding Source Purpose Administrator
FTA Section 5307 Purchase of buses, trains, ferries, vans, and other capital FTA/MTC
improvement, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required
Paratransit Service
FTA Section 5309 – Fixed Purchase of rail cars, ferries and equipment on fi xed-guideway FTA/MTC
Guideways transit services
FHWA – STP Roadway or transit rehabilitation, transportation system and FHWA/ MTC
operational improvements, highway construction, transit facilities,
ITS projects, intermodal port facilities
FHWA – CMAQ Transportation projects that improve air quality and relieve FHWA/MTC
congestion
FTA – JARC Projects and services designed to transport low-income persons to FTA/MTC
work; projects to move people to suburban job centers
FTA - New and Small Starts New rail lines or extensions; new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) fi xed Congress
guideway, other BRT
FTA – Elderly and Disabled Purchase of paratransit vans and related equipment California
Transportation
Commission
FTA – New Freedom Program Fund public transit alternatives beyond those FTA/MTC
required by ADA
FTA - Bus and Bus Facility Purchase of buses and improvements to bus facilities Congress

30
– Federal – Local
Highlighted here are key federal sources of fund- Highlighted here are key regional/local sources of
ing: Federal Transportation Act Section 5307; Federal funding: Transportation Development Act, County
Transportation Act Section 5309, Federal Surface Transportation Sales Tax revenues, Gasoline Tax
Transportation Program (STP), Federal Congestion Subventions, Regional Bridge Tolls, Vehicle License Fees,
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and Developer Impact Fees, and Transportation Fund for
(CMAQ), Federal Transportation Administration Job Clean Air. Table 13 identifies the purpose and administra-
Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC), Federal tor, for each funding source.
Transportation Administration New and Small Starts,
Federal Transportation Administration Elderly and – Potential New Sources
Disabled, Federal New Freedom Program, and Federal With escalating project costs and limited availability of
Transportation Administration Bus and Bus Facility. transportation funding, Project Sponsors are encouraged
Table 11 identifies the purpose and administrator for each to explore and identify non-traditional sources of funding,
funding source. which is not without significant challenges. Identifying
traditional and non-traditional funding sources is essen-
– State tial to meeting the transportation needs of the future and
Highlighted here are key state sources of funding: State the growing need for transportation investments.
Highway Operation and Protection Program, Traffic
Congestion and Relief Program, State Transportation Non-traditional sources of funding include innovative
Improvement Program, State Transit Assistance, Safe financing, establishing new funding sources and
Routes to School, Bicycle Transportation Account and developing public-private partnerships.
Proposition 1B Infrastructure Bond. Table 12 identifies
the purpose and administrator for each funding source.
Table 12. State Funding Sources (in no particular order)

State Highway Operation State highway rehabilitation projects Caltrans
and Protection Program
Traffi c Congestion and Streets and highways rehabilitation and specifi c list of projects California
Relief Program included in state statutes Transportation
Commission
State Transportation Roadway and transit capital improvement projects, road rehabilitation, Caltrans/ MTC
Improvement Program interregional improvements
State Transit Assistance Transit and Paratransit operating assistance and regional transit coordination Transit operators
Safe Routes to School Infrastructure projects and programs that promote walking
and bicycling near schools
Bicycle Transportation Bicycle path, lane or route construction and maintenance, lockers, racks on transit Caltrans
Account vehicles, planning, and safety education
Proposition 1B General obligation bonds for various programs: transportation corridor California
improvements, trade infrastructure and port security projects, school bus Transportation
retrofi t and replacement, state transportation improvement program, transit and Commission
passenger rail improvements, state-local partnership transportation projects,
transit security projects, local bridge seismic retrofi t projects, highway-railroad
grade separation and crossing improvement projects, state highway safety and
rehabilitation projects, and local street and road improvement, congestion relief,
and traffi c safety

31
• Traditional and Innovative financing: Mechanisms 6.3 Special Circumstances for
to creatively finance major infrastructure projects
by bonding or borrowing against future anticipated Advancing Funds
revenue streams. This may include Transportation There will be special circumstances when Project
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998
(TIFIA, a federal credit program), lease-financing Sponsors need to request Measure A funding beyond what
of transit vehicles, and finding ways to use future is readily available. For justified special circumstances, the
funding sources as collateral. TA has the authority to make funds available earlier than
• New funding sources: To increase the overall funding the collection of revenues. The overriding criteria to be
pool, it is necessary to generate additional dollars. used in the TA’s deliberation of advancing funds include:
Support for new sources and legislation such as
high-occupancy toll lanes, additional vehicle license • Urgency
fees, indexing of the state gas tax, tax assessment
districts, and pursuit of a regional gas tax are some of – A project that calls for immediate construction to
the potential new sources and may require legislative address a public safety need
action. – A project that can realize signifi cant cost savings if it’s
coupled with another project to be constructed in an
• Public-Private Partnerships (PPP): PPPs are being earlier timeframe
suggested as potential solutions to funding shortfalls
for the completion of projects. Generally, it is a – Loss of funding sources if the project is not
partnership between a governmental entity and a constructed within a certain time frame
private business venture in which the cost of a project • Impact to the Measure A Program
may be partially funded by the PPP in exchange for a – Potential of the funding advance delaying other projects
return to the private investors from a portion of the
revenues generated. Many types of PPPs exist and – Financial fees associated with advancing funds
most approaches are tailored to specific projects.
When a special circumstance arises, the TA Board will
consider the request based on criteria identified above.
If a decision is made to advance funds, specifics about
exactly how the funds will be advanced will be deter-
mined at that time.
Table 13. Local/Regional Funding Sources (in no particular order)

Transportation Development Act Transit capital and operating improvements for Transit MTC
and Paratransit (Articles 4, 4.5 and 8) and Bicycle and
Pedestrian (Article 3)
Other County Sales Tax Revenues Transportation improvements per the guidance from sales Counties
tax statutes
Gasoline Tax Subventions Local streets and road maintenance and rehabilitation Cities and Counties
Regional Bridge Tolls Projects that mitigate and relieve traffi c congestion on the MTC
bridges (AB 664, 2%-5%, Regional Measure 2)
San Mateo County $4 Motor Vehicle Management of traffi c congestion and stormwater C/CAG
License Fee pollution
Developer Impact Fees Cost to local government of a new development, including Local Governments
roads, sidewalks, sewers, and utilities
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Funds regional competitive and county funding categories. Bay Area Air Quality
Programs include: TFCA Regional Fund, Bicycle Facility Management District
Program, Smoking Vehicles Program, Spare the Air, (BAAQMD)
Vehicle Buy Back, and TFCA County Program Manager
Fund.

32
CHAPTER 7
Next Steps

7.0 Next Steps
From Strategic Plan to Project Funding
After adoption of the Strategic Plan, the TA will focus on:
• Developing a Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

• Developing a Procedures Manual and Call for Projects
• Issuing Call for Projects
• Selecting Projects
The critical first step for the TA will be to develop a CIP
based on estimated sales tax revenue, prior funding
commitments, countywide short- and long-term needs,
and anticipated program expenditures. The initial CIP
will be based on forecasts of revenues and projects to
be undertaken. As a dynamic living document, it will be
refined each year as projects are selected for funding.
Based on the CIP, TA staff will establish the funding

cycles for the Call for Projects. Included in the Call for
Projects will be the development of program-specific
criteria to be used in evaluating and prioritizing the
projects and the obligations associated with monitoring
the projects. The TA will make available a Procedures
Manual to instruct Project Sponsors through the
funding request process.
After the collection of project proposals, projects

will be reviewed by project evaluation committees to
inform the evaluation and prioritization of projects.
Recommendations will ultimately be presented to the
Board for fund programming and allocation actions,
leading to funding agreements and the advancement
of approved projects that fulfill the goals of the
Measure A Program.
Next Strategic Plan Update

The Strategic Plan will be updated a minimum of every
five years. The next update will reflect the results of the
Call for Projects and the projects prioritized for Measure
A funding. Public input will continue as the program
matures as it has been instrumental in the development
and success of the TA Program.

34
Appendices

Appendix A: Public Outreach Comments
Phase 1: Stakeholder Outreach Comments
Focused Interest Area: Transportation Demand Management

Topics Comments Response
Improve connectivity Ensure projects have a customer service oriented approach. Making regional connections and meet-
and customer service. ing local mobility needs are primary
Support new strategies. Improve communication systems and methods by adding goals of the Measure A program. These
system-wide public address announcements, more visual factors also will be addressed in the
message signs, and providing real-time information. “need” and “effectiveness” project
Provide better information at stations, including intermodal evaluation criteria categories and “cus-
transfers, as well as nearby attractions and recreational facili- tomer satisfaction” monitoring program
ties (i.e. kiosks and info boards). performance measure. Recommended
projects will need to be coordinated
Focus on education and information dissemination. through the Project Sponsor as identi-
Improve options and expand the number of locations for fi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered for
redeeming Commuter Check vouchers. TA funding.
Provide additional parking capacity at San Mateo County

BART stations (i.e. Daly City & Colma).
Reduce impediments to switching modes or transit agencies
through the use of a universal fare card/seamless fare system.
A fi ne job is done for North and South travel in the county, but
east-west shuttle service across the county is needed.
Improve access and connectivity to stations.
Create and expand carsharing, bikesharing, and ridematching
programs.
Examine more cost-effective ways to provide transit services.
Support telecommuting subsidies.
If fi xed-route service is not cost effective, transit service
providers should look at using on-demand and deviated route
services to match trips to where people need to go.
Create “people-centered” shuttles, instead of “route-centered”
shuttles to get people to popular destinations other than just
Caltrain and BART.
Expand the employer-based shuttles to provide mobility op-
tions to more than specifi c employees.
Park and ride facilities should be looked at as a way to make
shuttle services even more accessible.

36
Focused Interest Area: Caltrain
Improve connectivity, Install pedestrian quad gates for at-grade crossings, Connectivity and safety are addressed
safety and the customer and security cameras at stations and at-grade crossings in the “effectiveness” project evaluation
experience to enhance safety. criteria category. Customer satisfaction
is addressed in the monitoring program
Upgrade passenger car interiors and station amenities performance measure. Recommended
(i.e. more shelter from the elements). projects will need to be coordinated
Implement a fare integration program to ease transfers through the Project Sponsor as identi-
between modes. fi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered for
TA funding.
Install more ticket vending machines at stations and make
them easier to use.
Caltrain needs to purchase additional rolling stock to improve
capacity – including additional bicycle passenger capacity.
Improve system connectivity, including local and regional
service connectivity.
High Speed Rail How can California High Speed Rail bond money be used to Leveraging funds from all sources is
better leverage Measure A funds and complete the costly encouraged through the “effectiveness”
grade separation projects? project evaluation criteria category.
Project/Policy coordination and
consistency is addressed in the “policy
If the High Speed Rail bond is approved, the TA must ensure consistency” project evaluation criteria
that money is not wasted by building capital projects that will category. The Project Sponsor that will
need to be removed when the High Speed Rail system is built. play a key role in leveraging funding and
ensuring investments that support HSR
is the JPB.
Focused Interest Area: SamTrans
Improve SamTrans Shorten headways on all transit modes in the county. SamTrans service plans are prepared
service by SamTrans and will be considered by
Address the gaps in services provided. the TA only as it relates to the specifi c
programs identifi ed in the Measure A
Program. Recommended projects will
need to be coordinated through the
Project Sponsor as identifi ed in Chapter
5 to be considered for TA funding.
Focused Interest Area: Accessibility
Improve paratransit and Provide same-day services. A key focus of the Accessibility Services
coordinated services program is to encourage independent
Coordinate between public and private entities (i.e. shuttles living for seniors with special mobility
used by senior housing complexes). needs. Specifi c projects and service
Consider access to food and health centers, particularly for improvements will need to be coordi-
the elderly and disabled. nated through the Project Sponsor as
identifi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered
for TA funding.
Provide more accessibil- Provide additional fare collection machines at more locations The policy consistency and readiness
ity facilities and public on train platforms. project evaluation criteria categories
information address ADA requirements as well
Improve signage and wayfi nding at stations. as conducting a thorough planning
Procure vehicles that facilitate easier boarding and aligning by process that would address the needs
disabled passengers. of stakeholders including the senior
population. Specifi c projects and service
Embark on a campaign to get the word out on all of the avail- improvements will need to be coordi-
able services. Target the population group that will use the nated through the Project Sponsor as
services. Many people don’t even know some services exist. identifi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered
for TA funding.

37
Focused Interest Area: Environmental
Encourage energy Use solar technology to power the trains when the system is Environmental concerns are addressed
effi ciency and protect electrifi ed (i.e. solar installations at stations and on rail cars). in the “other” project evaluation criteria
natural resources category. Recommended projects
Electrify Caltrain to reduce our dependence on diesel fuel and will need to be coordinated through
improve the air quality. the Project Sponsor as identifi ed in
Provide electricity for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles at Chapter 5 to be considered for
Caltrain stations. TA funding.
Create travel lanes for neighborhood electric vehicles (i.e. golf
carts).
Consider stormwater runoff, fl ooding and watershed protec-
tion when constructing new projects.
Transportation demand Create HOV lanes in San Mateo County. Eligible highway projects are identifi ed in
management Chapter 3. The purpose of the Alterna-
Explore congestion pricing. tive Congestion Relief program is to
implement projects that effi ciently use
the transportation network and reduce
reliance on automobiles. Recommended
projects will need to be coordinated
through the Project Sponsor as identi-
fi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered for
TA funding.
Funding Where possible, maximize the use of funding for bicycle and Funding for pedestrian and bike im-
pedestrian improvements by funding them as part of other provements from other Measure A
larger categories like Highways and Caltrain. programs is limited. Each program
serves a specifi c purpose as described
in Chapter 3. A key strategy to leveraging
funding for bike and pedestrian improve-
ments is to seek funding from other
sources versus within the Measure A
Program. Key bike and pedestrian fund-
ing sources are listed in Chapter 6.

38
Focused Interest Area: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Improve safety, remove Repaint street crossings for better visibility. Safety and connectivity concerns
barriers, provide connec- are addressed in the “effectiveness”
tions, and provide access Install audible pedestrian signals at intersections. project evaluation criteria category.
to activity centers Explore other paving materials besides asphalt. Recommended projects will need to
be coordinated through the Project
Always consider safety factors (people bike and walk more Sponsor as identifi ed in Chapter 5 to
when the environment is perceived as safe). be considered for TA funding.
Ensure access to bike lockers at Caltrain stations by getting
keys back from users.
Provide pedestrian grade separations/undercrossings at
Caltrain tracks.
Create an overpass connection between El Camino Real and
Burgess Campus in Menlo Park.
Construct a pedestrian overcrossing for Highway 1 in Half
Moon Bay to make it safe, especially for children, to cross
Highway 1 and people do not have to drive just to get across
the street.
Install more street-level pedestrian signals instead of under-
passes or foot bridges which can pose safety concerns.
Complete the trail from Montara to Half Moon Bay.
Complete the trail from Woodside to Portola to Skyline and tie
it into the parks system.
Improve coordination among bike and trail systems.
Reopen upper Alpine Road near Stanford for pedestrian and
bike traffi c.
Invest in a complete off-road trail system.
Improve walkability, especially for seniors and persons with
disabilities.
Create a countywide bike plan.
Improve pedestrian routes to and from schools.
Funding Incorporate pedestrian and bike access into major highway Funding for pedestrian and bike
and transit projects so funding does not come out of this improvements from other Measure A
smaller pot of money. programs is limited. Each program
serves a specifi c purpose as described
Keep pedestrian project priority on par with bicycle projects. in Chapter 3. A key strategy to leveraging
funding for bike and pedestrian
improvements is to seek funding
from other sources versus within the
Measure A Program. Key bike and
pedestrian funding sources are listed
in Chapter 6. Based on the 2004
Expenditure Plan, there is no split be-
tween bicycle and pedestrian projects.

39
Phase 2: Community Meeting Comments
Geographical Area: Coastside

Transportation needs on Provide more weekend and evening shuttle services to BART Under the project evaluation criteria,
the Coastside and Caltrain. geographic equity was added to the
“other” category. This addresses the
Create additional shuttle service to SFO. importance of making investments
throughout the county. Proposed
People need to stop and shop for the economic vitality of the projects will need to be coordinated
coastside, not just pass through as quickly as possible. through the Project Sponsors as
identifi ed in Chapter 5 to be considered
How can the congestion needs of the coastal communities be for TA funding.
addressed?
Highway 1 is extremely important, and traffi c congestion
poses a serious health & safety issue if the road is blocked.
Highway 1 is a major thoroughfare and should be treated with
regional signifi cance.
Consider more possibilities than just widening for Highway 1.
Look at the context/importance of a thoroughfare
to a community.
Environmental Concerns Consider carbon neutral buses added on the coastal com- Environmental concerns are addressed
mute, as well as clean shuttles and other vehicles. in the “other” project evaluation criteria
category. Recommended projects will
Be cognizant of stormwater fl ows and provide for fl ood need to be coordinated through the
control. Project Sponsor as identifi ed in Chapter 5
Reduce carbon dioxide pollutant levels. to be considered for TA funding.
Foster healthy communities.
Reduce vehicle miles traveled.

40
Geographical Area: Bayside
Congestion Relief Promote system management projects like tolling, rather than Congestion relief is addressed under the
more widening. “effectiveness” project evaluation crite-
ria category. All eligible “key congested
Reversible lanes should be considered, where you cannot area” projects are listed in Chapter 3.
widen streets and traffi c patterns make it feasible. Recommended projects proposed for
The SR-92 West exit onto El Camino Real is very congested. the “supplemental roadway” program
will need to be coordinated through the
The Highway 101 and SR-92 interchange needs to be re-done Project Sponsor as identifi ed in Chapter 5
since it does not have the capacity to handle peak demand. to be considered for TA funding.
Improve highway on/off ramps for better traffi c fl ow.
Make sure projects actually improve level of service/reduce
congestion or at least do not make the situation worse.
Reduce the number of cars entering from other counties.
Reduce overall door-to-door travel time, regardless
of the mode.
Transit Service Improve overall transit system connectivity. Connectivity is addressed under the
Improvements “effectiveness” project evaluation
Improve multimodal connectivity and coordination, beyond criteria category.
just transit.
Make sure to preserve good cross-county connectivity.
Look at impacts on other transportation facilities when evalu-
ating projects.
Focus on providing accessibility to all.
Performance Promote good safety/accident record. Safety and cost related to benefi ts are
addressed under the “effectiveness”
Improve farebox recovery ratios. project evaluation criteria category.
Reduce the cost per passenger.
Be careful to weigh the criteria appropriately to provide
the best benefi t for the money expended.
Make sure projects actually meet community needs.
Needs, policy Balance the needs of city residents and commuters “Project justifi cation”,
considerations and from other cities/counties. “policy consistency” and
coordination “readiness” are project
Ensure resource allocation equity between communities evaluation criteria categories.
receiving funds.
Ensure environmental equity in criteria/impacts.
Consider regional impacts, including cumulative impacts.
Ensure coordination with city general plans.
Ensure interagency & public/private coordination.
Environmental Look at the environmental impacts/sustainability of projects. Environmental concerns are addressed
in the “other” project evaluation criteria
Strive for the most energy effi cient projects. category.
NOTE: Staff received comments related to both the 1988 and 2004 Measure A Programs.
Appendix A reflects comments and questions related to the 2004 Measure A Program.
Comments and questions related to the 1988 Measure A Program have been addressed separately.

41
Appendix B: Draft Strategic Plan Comments
Focused Interest Area: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program

Comments Response
Ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings with interchange improvements. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding can be
used for the planning, design development and
Funds would be better spent on making existing roads safer for bicyclists to share construction of projects in San Mateo County
roads with motorists, than on building bike bridges over roads and highways. that encourage and improve cycling and walking
Provide money to Caltrain to add more bicycles on trains. conditions. The candidate list of eligible projects
in the Strategic Plan were recommended
Consider development of bicycle boulevards. through the public forums and workshops that
The Millbrae Avenue and Hillsdale bicycle/pedestrian overpasses were conducted for the development of the 2004
shouldn’t be funded. Expenditure Plan. Projects on the candidate list,
as well as new proposed projects that address
Funds should be used for education and publicity about bicycle safety. the purpose of the program, are eligible for
The Pedestrian and Bicycle program money should not be used to fund funding and will be evaluated through the Call
the Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan recommendations. for Projects application process. Incorporating
bike and pedestrian components to other capital
Clarify the goals of the Pedestrian and Bicycle program. projects will be considered when program-
specifi c criteria are defi ned.
Would Safe Route to School implementation be an
eligible project under this category?
Focused Interest Area: Highways & Roads
Comments Response
Decrease congestion around the SR 92 and US 101 interchange. Improving safety and decreasing local and
countywide traffi c congestion are primary goals
Highway 1 improvements are needed to improve congestion, of the Measure A program. Eligible projects are
quality of life, and safety. defi ned under the Highway Program description
Repairing potholes on local streets is important. in the 2004 Expenditure Plan. New projects
(not listed in the plan) that address the program
Consider a second road (running north-south) through purpose are eligible for funding under the
Pacifi ca for emergency situations. Supplemental Roadway subcategory. Recom-
Synchronization of lights on Highway 1 in Pacifi ca is important. mended projects will need to be coordinated
through the Project Sponsor as identifi ed in
Improve public access on Highway 1 for safe vehicle ingress and egress to two Chapter 5 to be considered for TA funding.
National Park sites in San Mateo County: Sweeney Ridge and Montara Lighthouse.
Focused Interest Area: Transit
Comments Response
Improvements to Caltrain facilities need to be made in a timely fashion if projects The 2004 Expenditure Plan specifi es that
along the Caltrain corridor are to succeed as transit-oriented developments. projects which support transit-oriented develop-
ment will be given priority. Criteria categories
Public transit is important for the intermobility of local communities, that will be used to evaluate and prioritize
and for connecting the region with bullet trains. projects are listed in Chapter 5.
Caltrain projects, particularly those in San Mateo County, should receive high
priority in the plan.

42
Focused Interest Area: Process
Comments Response
Information regarding how Project Review Committees will be established Conducting a thorough planning process is
needs to be provided to allow for geographic equity. captured under the project “Readiness” evalua-
tion criteria. Each program category may differ
Include information in the Strategic Plan regarding how and what slightly in its planning process defi nition and
counties/agencies the TA will coordinate and interface with as the will be addressed when the program-specifi c
Strategic Plan is implemented and funding decisions are made. criteria are defi ned. Additionally, project review
committees will be formed post-adoption of
the Strategic Plan and timed with the Call for
Projects.
Focused Interest Area: Funding Availability

Comments Response
Consider advancing funds through selling bonds and also undertaking Requests for the advancement of funds will be
projects prior to the actual revenue collection of sales taxes to maximize considered on a case-by-case basis and will
cost savings and the capacity to do additional projects. need to be justifi ed with compelling reasons that
offset the impact of fi nancing fees and/or timing
of funds to other projects.
Focused Interest Area: Criteria and Performance Measures
Comments Response
Include Environmental Benefi t and/or Emissions Reduction as a criteria. Environmental Impact is one of the example
criteria for project evaluation. It includes the
Be sure to assess the effectiveness of projects. potential environmental benefi ts and disbenefi ts
There is no reference to AB 1358, the California Complete of a project. Effectiveness and Policy Consis-
Streets Act of 2008, in the Strategic Plan. tency are project evaluation criteria. Specifi c
measures of effectiveness and relevant laws
and adopted policies, such as AB 1358, will be
identifi ed when program-specifi c criteria are
defi ned.
Focused Interest Area: 2004 Expenditure Plan Framework
Comments Response
The plan identifi es a list of projects and states that other projects will be consid- The percentage distribution for each program
ered without stating the criteria for inclusion. category was determined with the development
of the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan
The percentage share for Bicycle and Pedestrian projects should be higher. and approved by voters in 2004. The projects
I am concerned that the percentage of money going towards highways is too much listed in the Strategic Plan were recommended
compared to public transit. through the public forums and workshops that
were conducted as part of the development of
the 2004 Expenditure Plan. These projects are
eligible for funding and, with the exception of
the Key Congested Area category under the
Highway Program, additional projects may be
proposed for funding if they meet the purpose
of the program categories.
NOTE: Staff received comments related to both the 1988 and 2004 Measure A Programs.
Appendix B reflects comments and questions related to the 2004 Measure A Program.
Comments and questions related to the 1988 Measure A Program have been addressed separately.

43
44
Board of Directors Executive Staff Acknowledgements

Rosanne Foust, Chair Executive Director
Representing South County Cities Michael J. Scanlon
Redwood City San Mateo County Transportation Authority C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee
Chief Administrative Officer
Rosalie O’Mahony, Vice Chair George Cameron Project Team Member Agency
Representing Central County Cities Marian Lee-Skowronek, Director, Planning & Development Bob Beyer San Mateo
Burlingame Chief Financial Officer Joe Hurley, Director, Transportation Authority Karen Borhmann Belmont
Gigi Harrington Melanie Choy, Manager, Capital Projects Planning Randy Breault Brisbane
Mark Church
Todd McIntyre, Manager, Special Projects April Chan Caltrain
Representing San Mateo County Chief Operating Officer
Board of Supervisors Chuck Harvey Ivy Tzur, Parsons Transportation Group Kenneth Folan Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Carmen Clark, Carmen Clark Consulting Gene Gonzalo CalTrans
Rich Gordon Chief Communications Officer Bob Schaevitz, URS Corporation Joseph Hurley San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Representing San Mateo County Rita Haskin
Duncan Jones Atherton
Board of Supervisors Staff/Consultant Support
Chief Development Officer Jon Lynch Redwood City
April Chan Liria Larano Rick Mao Colma
John Lee Ian McAvoy
Representing Cities-at-Large Richard Cook Bill Likens Ian McAvoy (Co-Chair) San Mateo County Transit District
San Mateo Special Assistant to the General Manager/CEO Jim DeHart Jim McKim Bill Meeker Burlingame
Mark Simon Marisa Espinosa Robert Tam Parviz Mokhtari San Carlos
Karyl Matsumoto Eric Harris Bill Welch
Representing SamTrans Board Steve Monowitz San Mateo County
Authority Secretary
South San Francisco Ron Holmes Tatum Mothershead Daly City
Martha Martinez
Syed Murtuza Burlingame
Jim Vreeland Citizens Advisory Committee
General Counsel Ruben Nino Menlo Park
Representing Northern County Cities Patricia A. Dixon, Chair Paul Young, Vice Chair
Hanson Bridgett Van Ocampo Pacifi ca
Pacifi ca David Miller Barbara Arietta Jim Bigelow
Robert Ovadia Daly City
Joan Cassman John Fox Richard Hedges
Larry Patterson San Mateo City
Randall Hees Steve Krause
Ron Popp Millbrae
Austin Mader-Clark Doris Maez
Jim Porter (Co-Chair) San Mateo County
Lawrence Shaine Nancy Stern
Ray Towne Foster City
April Vargas George Zimmerman
Sandy Wong C/CAG
Ad Hoc City Manager Committee

Jack Crist, Belmont
Patricia E. Martel, Daly City
James Nantell, Burlingame
Art Direction and Design

DRB Partners, San Jose, California
www.smcta.com
1250 San Carlos Ave.

STRATEGIC PLAN
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Adopted December 2008

2009-2013

TA Strategic Plan 2009-2013 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TA Strategic Plan 2009-2013 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TA Strategic Plan 2009-2013 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(1,1) -1- Cover-InsideCover_F.

indd 12/10/08 2:25:22 PM

1250 San Carlos Ave.

Adopted December 2008

Board of Directors Executive Staff Acknowledgements

Ad Hoc City Manager Committee

Art Direction and Design

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4

2.0 1988 Measure A Program ................................................................................ 6

3.0 2009 – 2033 Measure A Program ...................................................................... 10

4.0 Planning Process ......................................................................................... 18

5.0 Programming and Allocations Guidelines ............................................................ 22

6.0 Fund Management ........................................................................................ 30

7.0 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 34

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

In 2004, 75.3 percent of the San Mateo County

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

Table 2. 1988 Measure A Expenditures

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

3.1 2004 Expenditure Plan Goals

• Reduce commute corridor congestion

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

Table 3. Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories

Estimated Sales Tax Estimated Match

Caltrain 16.0% $240.0 million $250 million

Local Shuttles 4.0% $60.0 million $60 million

Accessible Services 4.0% $60.0 million $228 million

Ferry 2.0% $30.0 million $92 million

Dumbarton Corridor 2.0% $30.0 million $415 million

BART 2.0% $30.0 million $120 million

Key Congested Areas 17.3% $260.0 million $260 million

Supplemental 10.2% $153.0 million $65 million

Local Streets / Transportation 22.5% $337.5 million $527 million

Grade Separations 15.0% $225.0 million $125 million

Pedestrian and Bicycle 3.0% $45.0 million $25 million

Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1.0% $15.0 million $15 million

TOTAL 100.0%* $1,500 million* $2,200 million*

*Note: Includes up to 1% for Program Administration

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

Hillsborough 3.000 $ 10,125,000 • Millbrae Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike

Redwood City 9.612 $ 32,440,500 • Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike

Woodside 1.683 $ 5,680,125 • Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

Project Manager General

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

• Evaluating the project readiness as it relates to the

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

TA STR ATEGIC PL AN 2009-2013

Table 6. Participants and Responsibilities

Project Sponsor - Submit Funding Request to the TA

Transportation Authority - Evaluate and Prioritize Projects