HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08041987 - TC.1A I'c . I �
To; , -PARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Contra
Transportation Committees
Supervisors R. Schroder & T. Torlakson
DATE; County
o nt /
August 4, 1987 VVUI ll�
SUBJECT:
Transportation Committee Report on Legislation and Related Matters
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION-
The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board take action on
the following:
1. that the Board authorize the Chair to sign the agreement between
BART and the County on State Route 4 for BART to contribute up
to $2 million for the Route 4 project.
2. that the Board support in concept AB 2589 (Frizzelle) which
would allow the County or its designee the legal right to
construct transportation facilities and charge a toll for the
use of the facility. Clarification of the criteria used to
designate toll road authorization is needed from the author
before full support can be recommended.
3 . that any new sources of transportation funding for the County be
reviewed .by the Transportation Committee for proper allocation
and proper assignation to the appropriate department of the
County for administration and implementation.
The Transportation Committee also would like to report to the Board
that:
a. The Transportation Partnership Commission issue has been sent to
the Board for consideration and action. (See separate Board
Order. )
b. Transportation Planning Division staff has been directed to
explore setting up a trip to examine the Sacramento Metro Light
Rail Transit system.
C. Transportation Planning Division staff reported that the County
was successful in including the ultimate State Route 4 project
in the 1987 State Transportation Improvement Program as a
Special Study Project, so that an Memorandum of Understanding
could be executed with the State in order that the environmental
work could proceed.
dp8 :boTC8-04.t07
Orig. Dept. CDD, TPD
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: � YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATIONZOMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVEER SIGNATURE S t oder Supero or Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARK ON August 4, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Community Development ATTESTED
Transportation Division
County Administrator PHIL B CHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY f�L.0 DEPUTY
M382/7-83
Unfortunately, the Atlas Road interchange project and the two high
occupancy vehicle lanes projects (Units 5 and 6) in Alameda and
Contra Costa County were not included in the State TIP by the
California Transportation Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
1 . The impact of the County not signing the agreement would be that
the County would forgo up to $2 million that BART is willing to
commit to the Route 4 project as a contribution for preliminary
design and environmental work (which will accommodate rail
transit) .
2. The County may forgo having a potential financial tool ( i.e.
toll road authorization) which it may wish to use in resolving
some of its transportation problems.
3 . The County should consider carefully all new sources of
transportation funding that may become available and how such
funding should be administered and allocated for implementation.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND:
1. BART has agreed to contribute up to $2 million to the County for
the preliminary design and environmental work on Route 4 . BART
is working on an Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the extension of
rail to Eastern Contra Costa County and the proposed Route 4
work supports the extension of rail to East County.
2 . AB 2589 would allow counties or their designee the legal right
to construct transportation facilities (to state and federal
standards) which would charge a toll to use the facility
including any ongoing operational cost. The proposed toll
facilities can not be implemented. for any highway presently
planned or under construction or any highway programmed in the
State Transportation Improvement Program.
At issue with this bill is whether or not the Board wishes to
support the use such a financing mechanism. Although this type
of financing mechanism is used in the eastern United States, it
is uncommon on the west coast. Clarification is also needed
from the bill' s author concerning the criteria for designating
toll road authorization. For these reasons, the Transportation
Committee recommends that the bill only be supported in concept
at this time.
3 . New transportation funds that may become available should be
reviewed by the Transportation Committee to ascertain that the
funds are administered and allocated to projects that the Board
wishes to implement. Also, this policy is a logical extension
of the previous policy the Board adopted in sending all
transportation issues to the Transportation Committee.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
1 . The county will lose up to $2 million from BART for use on the
Route 4 preliminary design and environmental work.
2. The County will not have the option and flexibility to use this
financial tool to try to solve some of the County's
transportation problems.
3 . The Board will forgo an opportunity to have more direct
oversight in the selection, priority, and allocation of new
transportation funds.
RC:dsp (7. 30 . 87)
dp8 :boTC8-04 .t07